Is this a correct way in which to spend NHS money?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....-lifts-age-limit.html

Apart from the financial aspect, is it wise to encourage women to have a child at the age of 42?

/// Fertility experts said the recommendations may encourage more women to delay having babies until middle age, which puts both mother and child at risk. Children born to women over 40 are more likely to have abnormalities, and mothers are more likely to have problems during labour. ///

Apparently this has all come about because of concerns in the NHS that the existing age limit could leave clinics open to legal challenges under new age-discrimination laws.

[boxtops]

Women are still fit and able at 42, it's not considered as old these days - 55 years ago, my mother produced my brother at the age of 47 - which was unusual that long ago.

[New Judge]

The difference is, boxtops, that 55 years ago your mother almost certainly did not expect the taxpayer to spend £5k a throw helping her to conceive.

[jno]

NJ, whether fertility treatment should be available on the NHS at all isn't what the OP is asking. The question is whether 42 is too old. I think it's not. Women are healthier longer these days.

I wouldn't be aghast if fertility was taken off the NHS agenda as a matter of public policy, but I can imagine protests from Tory women if Lansley tried it.

[Old_Geezer]

It's all rather subjective, and whether 42 is too old depends on the individual woman anyway.

If the concern is that clinics open to legal challenges for having a limit of 39, why would they not at 42, or 76 or 395 ? It's all age discrimination isn't it ? Discrimination in itself is not a bad thing, only inappropriate discrimination is.

[Baldric]

http://www.telegraph....daughter-so-late.html

[anotheoldgit]

Some have mentioned the fitness of the modern mature prospective mother, that will enable them to conceive at such an age.

But no one has addressed the possibility of miscarriages and the risk of abnormalities in the children born to women over 40.

[China Doll]

No, it's not. But then I'm bias as I don't think fertility treatement should be free on the NHS at all except under a very strict criterior, (mainly to do with having a severe illness for which the treatment makes you unfertile).

[andy-hughes]

This is a very difficult question, given the massive emotional impact of conception and children.

I am very lucky, my wife and I have three healthy daughters, and because my wife giave birth to our oldest at nineteen, we were grandparents before we were forty - which is younger than the age that some of these women will be giving birth if this treatment goes ahead.

I have always believed that babies are a gift, and not a right, and if nature decrees that a woman does not conceive, there may be inbuilt biological reasons, and the circumvention of those may be harmful.

But that's easy for me to say - I am a man, and have not been denied children, and I am unable to empathise with a woman who is unable to conceive, so i hae to approach the question from a position of ignorance.

That of course does not preclude an opinion. If, as AOG suggests, the treatment age range is being rasied to head off ageism accusations, then this cannot be right - each case must be judged on its merits by the medical staff qualified to make those decisions.

It is, as I said, a very difficult moral, ethical and medical issue, but I don;t think that any woman should be allowed to proceed on the basis that a baby is her moral or legal right - I believe that to be morally indfensible.

[hc4361]

The government is hoping to save a fortune in the future when these babies are grown up and (hopefully) caring for their aged parents.

[whiskeryron]

I think this country's NHS is fast going down the pan, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the NHS conceived in order to help to keep the nation healthy & cure our ills ? Surely getting pregnant is a matter of personal choice & if there are women who for medical reasons cannot achieve this is it up to the taxpayer to foot the bill ?. The same applies to cosmetic surgery unless it is necessary because of state involvement ( military etc.) Let us face the obvious truth the NHS is skint, this government is trimming everything to the utmost limit & to talk about extending the age limit for IVF treatment is nothing short of ludicrous.

[rowanwitch]

With couples establishing later and with responsible couples waiting to try until they can afford to start families it can take a long tine to a) realise there is a problem and B) work through the huge list of investigations, fertility boosting drugs, etc so a woman might be in her late thirties when she wants to start a family but could easily spend a couple of years or more on the treadmill before the high tech fertility treatments are considered. One positive aspect is embryo screening could be used to reduce the risk of abnormalities in the offspring.

[jno]

the possibility of miscarriages and the risk of abnormalities in the children born to women over 40

This possibility isn't something that magically arises at the age of 40. It can happen to parents of any age. The NHS may reasonably seek to draw an age limit somewhere; saying that 42 is the new 39 isn't particularly unreasonable.

[THECORBYLOON]

The article says "Nearly half of all pregnancies in women aged 40 to 42 result in miscarriage"

Figures used by the NHS show

women under 30, 1 in 10 pregnancies will end in miscarriage.
women aged 35-39, up to 2 in 10 pregnancies will end in miscarriage.
women over 45, more than half of all pregnancies will end in miscarriage.

The true figure is not nearly a half but somewhere between twenty and fifty per cent.

[woofgang]

I was conceived and born normally. My Mum was 42 when i was born and i wasn't the only child in my class at school with a Mum of that age. personally I don't think that any should be provided on the NHS.
For the record, I am female and childless, not by choice.

[China Doll]

Raising the age limit because you're scared of being called ageist is very much unreasonable I think jno. It's thinking about the 'what ifs' rather than what is best for mother and baby. But as I said, I am bias :c)

[anotheoldgit]

/// The true figure is not nearly a half but somewhere between twenty and fifty per cent. ///

And isn't 50% not nearly but a whole half?

[THECORBYLOON]

There are no figures for those aged 40-44, if the figure for those aged up to 39 is 2 in 10 and those 45 and over is more than half, then the figure for those aged 40-44 must fall somewhere between the two. As 40-42 is at the lower end of the range, it would suggest the true figure is nearer 2 in 10 rather than almost half.

[anotheoldgit]

jno

/// This possibility isn't something that magically arises at the age of 40. It can happen to parents of any age. ///

Of course it can that is not being denied, but the possibility of miscarriages and the risk of abnormalities in children born to women over 40 is much more common, than in those born to younger mothers.

[boxtops]

NJ, yes I agree - but I'm with china on this one, I don't think fertility treatment should be a right at all. In my day, if you couldn't have children, you didn't - many of my friends don't have children and they are no less rounded people because of it, we accepted our lot. It's become a bandwagon - you've got to have progeny - I don't understand it, and I certainly don't understand why the State should pay for it.

[anotheoldgit]

/// There are no figures for those aged 40-44, if the figure for those aged up to 39 is 2 in 10 and those 45 and over is more than half, then the figure for those aged 40-44 must fall somewhere between the two. As 40-42 is at the lower end of the range, it would suggest the true figure is nearer 2 in 10 rather than almost half. ///

??????? Is there a mathematician in the house?