Wrong Wrong Wrong

Wrong.

BUCHAREST, Romania - A 66-year-old woman has become the world's oldest to give birth, and she and her day-old baby daughter were in good condition in intensive care, doctors said Monday.

Later in the day, mother and daughter were expected to be reunited for the first time since Sunday's birth.

Adriana Iliescu, who was artificially inseminated using sperm and egg from anonymous donors, delivered her daughter Eliza Maria by Cesarean section, doctors at the Giulesti Maternity Hospital in Bucharest said. The child's twin sister was stillborn, they said. {...}

Far be it from me to get in the way of anyone's reproductive choices, but that's just not natural. She just gave birth and she sixty-six years old. After Nine years of infertility treatments she finally got pregnant. That means this woman was fifty-seven when she decided to seek treatment for infertility. God only knows how long she'd been trying to conceive before that. The general rule of thumb is if you've been trying for a year and have been unable to conceive, then you go to the doctor and chat about your options.

But that's for people of a normal reproductive age. Not someone who's fifty-seven.

What is up with these doctors that they apparently thought it was a good idea to jumpstart this woman's reproductive system when, in normal circumstances, by all rights, it should have been shut down for good? In fact, hers was shut down: the egg and the sperm had to be donated. Where was the doctors' common sense? Why didn't they just let her down gently, tell her she missed her chance, and let that be the end of that? I have friends who have had their children---and one in particular who just knows she doesn't want any---who have wanted their fallopian tubes tied off, or what is commonly known as female sterilization. Yet their various doctors have completely refused to do this procedure for them at their age---which has varied between thirty and twenty-five. They just won't do it. Why? Because they're too young. The doctors have one general reply: they've seen too many women change their minds and then have requested their tubes to be untied, years after the fact. They have also seen the resultant heartbreak when these same women are unable to conceive. This refusal is reportedly an "ok" thing to do. It's extraordinarily common. But in Romania, well, they just can't say "no" to anyone, can they?

I find this just to be so wrong. I can only get into her motives so much before veering into the land of pure speculation, but I'd wager that motherhood was just one more thing on her list that she wanted to do and needed to cross off before she "got too old." I saw an interview with her on FOX and that's pretty much what she thought. But, at sixty-six, can a woman ever be up to the challenges of a newborn? Particularly, when it appears she's a single parent. (I haven't seen mention of a husband anywhere.) Is she up to the challenge of motherhood, in general? Or did she just get pregnant to prove a point, like I suspect? But most importantly, what of the child? She is susceptible to many different risk factors simply because of the age of her mother and the fact she was born premature. It's a blessing she was born, don't get me wrong. But, Good God. What was this woman thinking? In a country where the average life expectancy rate for a woman is 74.82 years, is it fair to say that she will, automatically, live past that age? And to plan around it? While it's possible the mother might be hit by a bus tomorrow, it's more than probable that this woman has fewer years left to her life, not more. What will become of her child when she, more than likely, dies before her daughter reaches the age of maturity? Mothers are supposed to know best about what their child needs and to provide it for them. That, in some instances, means thinking ahead toward the future. Why is this woman ignoring the probabilities? Doesn't she care about her child?

Shame on her. Really. That sounds lame, but geez. What else can I tell her? The deed is done.

This whole scenario gives me the heebie-jeebies. I'm not saying that anyone who wants to have a child shouldn't seek help from the medical community. While I have religious issues with IVF and the like, I don't impose my worldview on people who resort to these means. If they're doing it for the right reasons-- they want to bring life into the world---who am I to deny them? Just because I know it's not for me, well, that doesn't mean it's not for someone else.

I, do, however have one main non-medical objection to fertility treatments and it is that people increasingly don't know when to quit. Their hopes and dreams and bank balances are wrapped up fulfilling this dream. And the medical community has bent over backwards to make this happen for people and encourages them to keep on hoping. It's a big business, and whenever you're dealing with someone's hopes and dreams and a buck is made off tweaking said hopes and dreams there is a chance for serious, serious errors to be made in judgment.

In this case, it's patently obvious that our bodies work a certain way for a certain reason. To rail against that so flagrantly just smacks of playing God.

What's really sad about this is how many people will think this is a good thing? Particularly those who have thought that their childbearing days were behind them? Those who gave up trying because it was too heartbreaking a thing to have to deal with? This woman might have given them hope and that's what I find despicable.

Posted by Kathy at January 17, 2005 02:23 PM