Woman of 58 gives birth to twins after successful IVF treatment

[[email protected]]

Woman of 58 gives birth to twins after successful IVF treatment
The Sunday Mirror today reports on a woman who, at 58, is the country's oldest mother of twins.
Janet Bosher and her partner, Martin, sought the help of Professor Ian Craft, whose London-based
clinic is the only one in Britain offering fertility treatment to people over 50. Janet gave birth
to the twins last September.

"I'll never forget the feeling of utter joy and love when I saw the twins," Bosher told the Sunday
Mirror. "I was in tears. I felt so lucky and couldn't quite believe that I'd actually carried these
two beautiful little babies inside me."
Professor Craft's clinic was responsible for Europe's first IVF twins in 1982 as well as in 1997,
when 60-year-old Liz Buttle became Britain's oldest mother.

Sadly, Janet's partner, Martin Maslin, passed away two weeks ago after suffering a heart attack.

More

[Truffles]

Shannon wrote:

> There is no way a 58 year old should be having kids.

Tell that to men, then.

If you are healthy, why not.

--
Brigitte aa #2145
edd #3 February 15, 2004
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/j/joshuaandkaterina/

"Readers are plentiful; thinkers are rare."
~ Harriet Martineau

[Nina]

"Truffles" > wrote in message
...
> Shannon wrote:
>
> > There is no way a 58 year old should be having kids.
>
> Tell that to men, then.
>
> If you are healthy, why not.
>

I suspect nature has a reason for preventing pregnancies after a certain age
in females.
Why not? I can think of a ton of reasons

>

[Truffles]

Nina wrote:

> "Truffles" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Shannon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There is no way a 58 year old should be having kids.
>>
>>Tell that to men, then.
>>
>>If you are healthy, why not.
>
> I suspect nature has a reason for preventing pregnancies after a certain age
> in females.
> Why not? I can think of a ton of reasons

Ah, but, we are beyond nature now. Without medical intervention, nature
would not let us live as long as we do now, or have as healthy of
children, or on a personal note, survive childbirth.

Nature, is no longer a factor in the lives of mankind, nor has it been
for quite a while.

--
Brigitte aa #2145
edd #3 February 15, 2004
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/j/joshuaandkaterina/

"Readers are plentiful; thinkers are rare."
~ Harriet Martineau

[Magenta]

That's a pretty rude comment to make about an elder peson whether it's a
troll or not.
How would you feel if someone stereotyped you at age 59 using a walker and
such.

"Marie" > wrote in message
...
> Shannon wrote in message >...
> >There is no way a 58 year old should be having kids.
>
>
> How dare you make such a comment! I am 59 and had my baby 2 months ago. I
> hang her in her Snugli from my walker and my boobs droop so low I don't
even
> have to pick her up to feed her. My grandchildren babysit so I can have
time
> alone with the old geezer.
> ;o)
> Marie
>
>
>
>

[Lynne M.]

Truffles > wrote in message >...
> Shannon wrote:
>
> > There is no way a 58 year old should be having kids.
>
> Tell that to men, then.
>
> If you are healthy, why not.

Indeed. I used to feel as some of the other posters do -- that
perhaps the health risks and the effort and money involved in
restarting a system that has shut down naturally were a bit
much, but I got roundly thrashed for daring to suggest that
anyone not do whatever she pleases. Well, I thought about it for
awhile and I think they are correct: all interventions are good.
I used to think that it would be good to avoid interventions --
if you wish to -- for health reasons, but I don't anymore. If a
58-year-old woman can have pre-eclampsia and give birth by caesarian,
I can't see why people need to worry about much younger women going
through the same thing. I looked up this mother and she did indeed
have a caesarian; I have no idea whether or not she suffered from
pre-eclampsia, which is common with much older mothers. Surely
what is good for these women must be just as good for everyone
else who desires it. If she is happy, it's her life and good
luck to her.
Lynne

[Truffles]

H Schinske wrote:

> wrote:
>
>
>>Nature, is no longer a factor in the lives of mankind, nor has it been
>>for quite a while.
>
>
> That's a little strong :-) Gravity didn't go away when we invented airplanes.

LOL! You're right. I should have said we manipulate nature and natural
forces to suit our needs all the time. Actually, we have been doing so
for all of our history. Clothing, fire, etc.

--
Brigitte aa #2145
edd #3 February 15, 2004
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/j/joshuaandkaterina/

"Readers are plentiful; thinkers are rare."
~ Harriet Martineau

[==Daye==]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:45:02 GMT, "Magenta" >
wrote:

>How would you feel if someone stereotyped you at age 59 using a walker and
>such.

Given that I have people in my family in their 70s and beyond
that don't need walkers.

--
==Daye==
Momma to Jayan
#2 EDD 11 Jan 2004
E-mail: brendana AT labyrinth DOT net DOT au

[Lynne M.]

"Circe" > wrote in message news:<DJFRa.11299$u51.2230@fed1read05>...
> Lynne M. wrote:
> > I can't see why people need to worry about much younger women going
> > through the same thing. I looked up this mother and she did indeed
> > have a caesarian;
>
> FWIW, since vaginal births of twins are relatively rare, it's not all that
> surprising she had a c-section; the vast majority of much younger women
> having twins wind up having c-sections because doctors are nervous about
> attempting vaginal deliveries unless both babies are vertex. Sometimes, you
> can get away with attempting a vaginal birth if the presenting twin is
> vertex and the other is a frank breech. But if the presenting twin is breech
> or the presenting twin is vertex while the other is a footling or partial
> breech, you won't find a doctor anywhere willing to deliver them vaginally.
>
Agreed, but I also read the study that tracked about 80 post-menopausal
women who did the same as this mother, and they nearly all had caesarians
with their singletons. So, while I agree with your explanation of twins,
it seems like post-menopausal women are much likelier to experience
pre-eclampsia and caesarians anyway. Well, if they can have caesarians
with their babies, why should we be worrying about the risks to younger
women? Surely they must be minuscule. I can't imagine that people are
going to argue that somehow this is actually safer when you are 30
years older. Btw, how many of these older women do you think breastfeed?
I really have no idea, but I'll bet not many. Well, if they don't need
to do it, or can't, why is it important for younger women and their
babies?

In my own mind, I have simply turned this around, deciding that younger
women must be weenies to be complaining about their discomforts
or worries. If their mothers can do it, surely they can suck it up
as well.

> I do agree that pregnancy and birth seems to carry some fairly heavy risks
> for post-menopausal mothers and their babies. And certainly, those risks
> ought to be considered when deciding whether or not to undertake a pregnancy
> at such an age. That said, I can't get particularly "het up" about 58yo
> women becoming mothers from a *moral* POV; men, after all, have been
> becoming fathers at such advanced ages for centuries.
> --
Indeed. If worse comes to worse and this single mother dies or becomes
incapacitated due to age-related problems, surely her children won't
be any worse off than the kids of younger people who never managed
to get their lives together in the first place. At least these twins
won't have to cope with a bewildering parade of half-brothers and
sisters, or relatives who come and go as relationships start and
end. Unless, of course, she decides to do this again....

Lynne

[Jenrose]

"Truffles" > wrote in message
...
> Nina wrote:
<snip>
> Ah, but, we are beyond nature now. Without medical intervention, nature
> would not let us live as long as we do now, or have as healthy of
> children, or on a personal note, survive childbirth.

The vast majority of women can survive childbirth just fine without medical
intervention. And it is impossible in the vast majority of even "necessary"
interventions to say that they truly would have been necessary in a
different environment. I certainly would have survived childbirth without
medical intervention, and I had all the bells and whistles available. They
did nothing but slow me down and interfere with the process.

That said, 50+year olds having kids, assisted reproduction or not, doesn't
bother me. Some of the best parents I know are grandparents parenting their
own grandchildren.

Jenrose

[Shades of Gray]

"Shannon" > wrote in message
...
> There is no way a 58 year old should be having kids.
>

Based on what? Parenting skills, life stage, biology? There are many
younger women who should most certainly not have children. Age isn't much
of a basis for an argument against having a child.