Ethical question: Woman gives birth at 66; right or wrong?

[Gav]

As I was stating an opinion, not entering into a highly technical debate, I didn't bother to make the distinction - sheer laziness on my part. I think that there are reasons that make this unethical; mostly on terms of health issues, longer term surivivability of the mother, wider impacts on society, the social stigma for the child and so on. And I do believe that there is an ethical question here.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Er...what gave you impression that I wasn't giving my opinion? Did the "IMO" throw you off?

Did you think I was speaking for Planned Parenthood or something?

Heavens forfend! That would be way to 'liberal' for you...a sure sign of Apocalypse!

No, I wasn't thrown off. You just injected an element into the conversation (Should the state regulate birth?) which wasn't present in the original question. You actually stated two opinions--one which was in answer to the question asked, and one in answer to a question not asked.

I just wanted to clarify the scope of the question.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by jeff

A wording quibble: I don't think "irresponsible" is the same thing as "unethical". Depending on how you feel about those words you could say "yes" to the former and "no" to the latter.

I believe that any behavior that is irresponsible is also unethical when such behavior negatively impacts--or has a high probability of negatively impacting--the life of another.

How do you see it?

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

I believe that any behavior that is irresponsible is also unethical when such behavior negatively impacts--or has a high probability of negatively impacting--the life of another.

How do you see it?

I think you took that too far. Irresponsible acts can affect others without going so far as to be related to ethics.

I can go to bed early one night, leaving the dinner dishes unwashed. The mess I left affects my family's pleasure, but it is hardly unethical. There are lots of actions we could discuss as irresponsible where the consequences are far from unethical!

[jeff]

I take the same sense of these words as Maeve_Mari: they're two different concepts. I can be irresponsible by not mowing my lawn or waiting till the last minute to do a chore, but they don't relate to ethics.

In this particular case, I think it's irresponsible, because a person is taking actions that have a high risk of negative consequences. The fact that many of these consequences would be suffered by others (the child, the cost society paid to provide the IVF instead of - hypothetically - using that money for somebody's dialysis or returning the money to the general ledger), is what can also lead to a judgement of 'unethical' as well.

Just heard a story from my wife: young children with parents in the mid-50s teased on the playground because parents were old enough "to look like Grandma", so they got the younger aunt and uncle to take the kids to and from school.

[Peach]

At the school where I teach (expensive private school), parents would look odd if they weren't a good bit older. Quite a number of the elementary school parents are old enough to be retired. Of course, usually these are second families (often for both parents), and they have enough money to get away with their belated decisions--it's expensive paying for tuition at the same time as you are planning on taking a pension.

[Duck]

This is part of an article from one of the big Romanian newspapers:

"The case of Adriana Iliescu, the 67-year old woman who gave birth to a premature baby girl in a maternity hospital in Bucharest on Sunday after being artificially inseminated, has triggered heated debates about medically assisted reproduction, which is not regulated by any law in Romania. The 67-year old woman, who has undergone fertility treatments for 9 years including procedures to reverse menopause, before being artificially inseminated, is the world's oldest recorded woman to give birth. A law on this matter was proposed by former Health Minister Ovidiu Brinzan while he was a deputy, but after being passed by the two chambers of parliament, was rejected by ex-president of Romania, Ion Iliescu. The College of Doctors will launch an investigation to see whether ethical principles were observed in the case of Adriana Iliescu. "We have to see whether it's a medical act or an experiment. Since the story was reported in the press, we've asked the College of Doctors in Bucharest to provide a report on the medical act. We will examine the activity of the doctors' team to see whether ethical principles were observed", said Doctor Vasile Astarastoaie, president of the Bioethics Commission of the College of Doctors. In a press release issued on Monday, the Health Ministry said that it does not encourage such interventions for persons who are past the normal fertility age."

The article is much longer, but for the English version they shorten it. Another big issue in the article is the fact that the "Church" does not agree with Adriana's act.

[ThatReallyHurt]

This is a very interesting thread, with a nice spread of opinions.
Personally, I think I'm against it, and here's why:

When I was a kid, a good friend of mine was complaining that he hated his dad because his dad never did anything with him. I naturally assumed that his dad was at work all the time, or busy around the house. I discussed this with my dad, who always went out of his way to spend time with me and teach me various sports (which I always stank at) and intellectual pursuits, and he mentioned that my friend's dad was old enough to be his (my dad's) dad.

I went over to my friend's place one day and finally met his dad. To an 8 year old kid, my friend's parents were ancient. They'd had him when she and he were 48 and 60, respectively. He'd had bypass surgery and blocked arteries in his legs. Throwing a ball around with his kid was, after a day at work, getting to be beyond his reach.

I realize I'm rambling on here, sorry about that. To make a long story short, his father died when he was 12 years old.

Now, I also know a lot of 60 and 70 year olds who are in better shape than I am. I can't help thinking, though - was it a good idea for them to have a child when they weren't able to spend "quality" time with him? They'd already had four others - was having a fifth child really being fair to that fifth child? I lost track of my friend about 10 years ago, but up to that point, he'd never forgiven his father for not spending time with him.

Yes, I realize that there are a lot of factors here - there are many people who are in their 60's who are in great shape. There's also the fact that maybe his dad just wasn't a good dad - surely even someone who was ill could have spent time reading or playing cards.

I don't know. I just think that you should keep the best interests of your child or future child in mind when you're thinking about having children. I'm sure there's no "perfect time" to have kids, but there are always some factors you can control.

I apologize if I've offended anyone, this is just how I see it.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by ThatReallyHurt

Yes, I realize that there are a lot of factors here - there are many people who are in their 60's who are in great shape. There's also the fact that maybe his dad just wasn't a good dad - surely even someone who was ill could have spent time reading or playing cards.

I don't know. I just think that you should keep the best interests of your child or future child in mind when you're thinking about having children. I'm sure there's no "perfect time" to have kids, but there are always some factors you can control.

I apologize if I've offended anyone, this is just how I see it.

I think you are very perceptive and contemplative. And lucky that your dad spent so much time with you.

One thing I wanted to point out about your friend's father, that may not have occurred to you, is that for many, I'm thinking Catholics right now, but not exclusively, that birth control is not an option. Many people feel that they are responsible to accept the children that God gives them. When you get married, you acknowlege and accept the requirement to bear children as God's will. (The fact that many Catholics practice birth control is a different topic altogether (related to how the Catholic Church has lost touch with it's devout, but veering, parishoners.....))

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Duck

This is part of an article from one of the big Romanian newspapers:

"The case of Adriana Iliescu, the 67-year old woman who gave birth to a premature baby girl in a maternity hospital in Bucharest on Sunday after being artificially inseminated, has triggered heated debates about medically assisted reproduction, which is not regulated by any law in Romania. The 67-year old woman, who has undergone fertility treatments for 9 years including procedures to reverse menopause, before being artificially inseminated, is the world's oldest recorded woman to give birth. A law on this matter was proposed by former Health Minister Ovidiu Brinzan while he was a deputy, but after being passed by the two chambers of parliament, was rejected by ex-president of Romania, Ion Iliescu. The College of Doctors will launch an investigation to see whether ethical principles were observed in the case of Adriana Iliescu. "We have to see whether it's a medical act or an experiment. Since the story was reported in the press, we've asked the College of Doctors in Bucharest to provide a report on the medical act. We will examine the activity of the doctors' team to see whether ethical principles were observed", said Doctor Vasile Astarastoaie, president of the Bioethics Commission of the College of Doctors. In a press release issued on Monday, the Health Ministry said that it does not encourage such interventions for persons who are past the normal fertility age."

The article is much longer, but for the English version they shorten it. Another big issue in the article is the fact that the "Church" does not agree with Adriana's act.

Interesting how this information sheds some light on the questioning of irresponsible versus unethical. I still don't get it. They spent over nine years working on this with this woman! Of all the services the time and money could have gone towards instead! I saw the Diane Sawyer trips to the Romanian orphanages! Meh! There is no end to how the world could be a better place!

[Welted 24/7]

I think it's inconsiderate. Yes, all parents might die before their child becomes an adult. Hell, there's a chance YOU might die tomorrow. But contrary to something somebody already said, a person at the age of 66's body is beginning(already isn't, in some cases) not to work so well anymore. That's just getting old. The average age of most people these days is mid-70s, last I heard. Let's say in ten years, this woman dies. Her child now has to bury a mother at the age of ten.

Not to mention...

The 67-year old woman, who has undergone fertility treatments for 9 years including procedures to reverse menopause, before being artificially inseminated

When biology says no, it's time to give it a rest.

[prototoast]

Your title suggests an ethical question but your actual question is about rights. I think a woman has the right to have a child at any age, but I think anyone having a child at that age is wrong to do so (I believe doing so would be unethical).

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by Welted 24/7

When biology says no, it's time to give it a rest.

Ah, the miracles of science. "No" no longer means "no".

[LordTofuDog-jnr]

I don't think people should be allowed to have kids if the kid is going to grow up reading books called "Cocaine and Your Mum" but as far as age goes who cares? The mother is happy and a baby is born, nobody loses there.

[Welted 24/7]

The mother is happy and a baby is born, nobody loses there.

And the kid has psychologocial issues to deal with when his mother is dead before he graduates high school.

[HillBilly]

Choice is up to the lady. She wants a baby (and is understandingthat she may well die before her kid even reaches the end of college) that's fine. It puts quite a bit of responsibility on her son, however... Nursing home, medication... this woman ain't going to be young for too long.

[HillBilly]

oh ****, there was a second page >.<

[LordTofuDog-jnr]

Originally Posted by Welted 24/7

And the kid has psychologocial issues to deal with when his mother is dead before he graduates high school.

Well that's a massive assumption! You could just as easily say:

"And the kid, who's mother died before he graduated high school, remembers here with love and care; he thanks her memory every day because she went ahead and actually gave him life".

[mlr2fence]

This is like many other things medical: Just because we can doesn't mean that we have to. In an era of ever increasing limited resources how does one allocate them? That is the big question. As to this particular poll lets view it from the child's position: Has adequate arrangements been considered for the raising of this child? Yes, any parent could die early, but as one ages those odds increase. I view the mom as somewhat selfish. I think she was looking at her own self-gratification more than considering the welfare of the child. Why didn't she have kids at the 'normal' age? Was she looking to further her own career, etc and not wanting to be bothered with kids then? These are some deep ethical questions, ones which society will be increasingly faced as medicine advances, and not just fertility related ones. There are no easy answers.

[scrapinpeg]

I don't think it's an issue of "rights" at all.

A "right" is something that cannot be precluded by the government. Calling something a "right" implies that it is something the government might otherwise prevent.

So having the "right" to bear children during one's advanced years implies that there is a danger that the government would step in and prevent it, which would mean imposed involuntary sterilization or abortion. And I don't think any of us live in a place where that is a possibility.

I agree with others that this is instead a moral issue: SHOULD an aged woman have babies. In that case, the factors to be considered would be the same as if you asked whether ANY person should have a baby. Most factors boil down to the individual's ability to provide and protect during infancy and childhood.

So the answer is, it depends on the person. Some old people would be terrible parents and would be acting irresponsibly by having babies they can't take care of, just like some young people. Other old people, just like other young people, would be perfectly fine.