Well that is pushing ethical boundaries

[K+MgSO4, BSN]

Indian Woman Age 73, Gives Birth to Twins

A 73-year-old woman in the southern Indin state of Andhra Pradesh has given birth to twin girls.

Doctors delivered the twins, who were born following IVF treatment, on Thursday.

"The mother and the babies are doing well," Dr Uma Sankar, the woman's doctor, told BBC Telugu.

Mangayamma Yaramati said she and her husband, who is 82 years old, have always wanted children but had been unable to conceive until now.

"We are incredibly happy," her husband Sitarama Rajarao told BBC Telugu on Thursday, hours after the babies were born.

But just a day later, Mr Rajarao suffered a sudden stroke and is currently being treated in hospital.

"Nothing is in our hands. Whatever should happen will happen. It is all in the hands of God," Mr Rajarao had said when asked who would care for the children in case anything were to happen to the couple due to their advanced age.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49575735

Hi all. Just seen this article on the BBC news website. I feel it is completely unethical to do IVF for a woman in her 70s. This is money doing the talking and Hippocrates being ignored. There will be harm to these twins who will be orphaned young.

[Salisburysteak, BSN, RN]

I just read that article also! That is crazy and it is unethical. I mean the father had a stroke the day after the twins were born! I do believe the doctors involved were looking at the money and not he patient’s well being.

[amoLucia]

This was just on the TV!!!!!!! A 79 yo mother and 80 yo father in India.

IVF pregnancy. And we all NOW know the term IVF.

There were no previous children. She had been tested and was determined OK.

I remember many years ago when the surprise was all about Louise Brown, the first baby IVF, I believe.

And the sheep that was cloned.

Technology moves on!!! Not saying I totally agree.

[K+MgSO4, BSN]

2 hours ago, amoLucia said:

This was just on the TV!!!!!!! A 79 yo mother and 80 yo father in India.

IVF pregnancy. And we all NOW know the term IVF.

There were no previous children. She had been tested and was determined OK.

I remember many years ago when the surprise was all about Louise Brown, the first baby IVF, I believe.

And the sheep that was cloned.

Technology moves on!!! Not saying I totally agree.

Yes technology moves on but let's look at these 2 children. They will not have the same upbringing as their peers - elderly parents who have no other children to assist them, higher risk of medical conditions perfectly shown by the stroke dad had D1 post birth. They will lose their parents early potentially being orphaned very young. There are many practical reasons why 70 something people can't have kids.

[amoLucia]

K+MgSO4 - Oh, I agree with you. I vaguely remember a similar IVF birth a few years ago to a significantly older Italian (?) woman. Wonder what ever happened to that birth?

I'd be curious if those IVF children born of older women have had any significant growth & development issues. I guess that population is so new and so small that any great amount of data could be gleaned. And what happens as they mature?

Who knew back in 1960 that thalidomide would cause such birth defects and then infertility of the next generation of those women who took the drug?

You're right - there are reasons.

[Jory, MSN, APRN, CNM]

This is why we have the ASRM in the United States and why you don't hear of these cases in this country.

This..is what medical ethics is all about. I think age 50 should absolutely be at the upper limit for IVF UNLESS you are using IVF to carry a child for a family member.

[LibraSunCNM, BSN, MSN, CNM]

I saw that last night as well! My mind can't fathom how that could have been scientifically possible. I agree it was completely unethical, but I also think cases like that Octo-Mom woman here in the States are equally wrong.

[Corey Narry, MSN, RN, NP]

4 hours ago, LibraSunCNM said:

My mind can't fathom how that could have been scientifically possible.

Lots of exogenous progesterone supplementation during the implantation? I agree that it's almost miraculous that she went through the pregnancy without apparent issues. I feel that this is unsafe/unethical practice for the woman herself. Is there a cultural stigma to being a childless wife in that part of India?

[amoLucia]

Jory - what is ASRM? Haven't had the chance to look it up. And just to say - my Mom had a ladyfriend who naturally conceived & carried her son at age 51. Mother and baby were fine thru preg, delivery and after. And I knew that lady.

That Indian woman was just a womb! Whose sperm? I recall another headline some years ago where a guy carried a pregnancy? Can't remember if it was an ectopic preg or if the Mom was transgendered (still had a womb). Yeah, these were topics for the National Enquirer; today it'd be the Web.

Juan - you bring up a very good question. I wonder if there would be financial or publicity to be gained for those parents. Maybe the children also as they go thru life as 'those special children'. Obviously, there is 'celebrity' status being garnered. Same with Octomom and Kate Goslin. In the 1940's it was the Canadian Dionne quints.

To my mind, there's just too many unanswered possibilities. Yet what was unthinkable (and considered unethical?) years ago is pretty standard today.. Just something to ponder. Medical science and medical technology stand to gain from those early endeavors.

And I stand corrected from my early post - mother was 74 and father was 82.

[adventure_rn, MSN, NP]

While I agree from a personal perspective, to play the devil's advocate...

Is it really the place of a healthcare organization to police who is or isn't fit to be a parent? That also sounds like a very slippery slope, especially when you consider that there are plenty of people who don't have the capacity/resources to be parents who naturally conceive tons of kids (i.e. the NICU baby whose mom has lost custody of her other six kids but continues to reproduce).

[LibraSunCNM, BSN, MSN, CNM]

6 hours ago, adventure_rn said:

While I agree from a personal perspective, to play the devil's advocate...

Is it really the place of a healthcare organization to police who is or isn't fit to be a parent? That also sounds like a very slippery slope, especially when you consider that there are plenty of people who don't have the capacity/resources to be parents who naturally conceive tons of kids (i.e. the NICU baby whose mom has lost custody of her other six kids but continues to reproduce).

My issue with this case is not about 70 year olds not being "fit" to be parents, per se, but rather the disregard for mother and baby's actual health by proceeding with an experiment like this.

[adventure_rn, MSN, NP]

29 minutes ago, LibraSunCNM said:

My issue with this case is not about 70 year olds not being "fit" to be parents, per se, but rather the disregard for mother and baby's actual health by proceeding with an experiment like this.

I think that's an excellent distinction. Honestly, my initial post was reacting to @K+MgSO4 statements that the procedure was unethical because the kids would be 'orphaned young' and that they 'won't have the same upbringing as their peers,' which implies that the parents would be unfit. I do think that that kind of rhetoric may overstep a line that isn't ours to cross. IMO, it comes uncomfortably close to the rhetoric of the Eugenics movement, in which people with disabilities and minority groups were forcibly sterilized because they weren't considered fit parents (again, a 'medical ethics' issue that evolved into a 'social ethics' issue.)

It does make sense that we as healthcare workers should weigh in on ethics insofar as it impacts the health of the parents and kids. I guess screening for age makes sense in the same way that certain people aren't deemed to be appropriate candidates for IVF due to comorbid health issues.

That said, I know the data is pretty limited, but it seems as though there have been successful instances of *healthy* older people carrying the fetuses of younger people to term. I remember reading an article recently about a woman in her 60s acting as a surrogate for her own son and his partner; from my understanding, both surrogate and baby did quite well. I'd imagine that there are some physically active 65-year-old women out there who could have significantly better pregnancy outcomes than many 25-year-old pregnant women in poor health.

If these moms and kids appear to have ok outcomes, then who is to say we shouldn't continue the practice? (Again, I'm playing the devil's advocate here).