Women aged 45 and over should be discouraged from having babies, according to a leading expert on women's health.

Dr Anna Glasier, clinical director for sexual health at NHS Lothian in Scotland, says that middle-aged women considering "late child-bearing" should think again because it is "likely to be difficult and, for some, distinctly unenjoyable".

Writing in the launch edition of Menopause International, published next month by the Royal Society of Medicine on behalf of the British Menopause Society, Dr Glasier suggests that older woman who choose to get pregnant are as thoughtless about the consequences as teenagers who have unprotected sex.

Her remarks are certain to cause controversy, as birth rates among older mothers have risen substantially in recent years. In 1994, in England and Wales, there were 448 babies born to women aged 45 or over; 10 years later, that figure stood at 909.

Among those who have had a child at the age of 45 or beyond are Cherie Blair, the model Iman and writer Helen Fielding. All disagree with the suggestion that they were too old. Iman said she felt much better prepared at45 than when she had a child at 21.

Dr Glasier says: "Selflessly (and clearly misguidedly) most women are likely to be unconcerned about their own health and much more worried about the outcome for the baby. Just as young women seem to think they will get away with having unprotected sex without getting pregnant, the same women - a little later on in their reproductive lives - are almost certainly of the view that the disasters associated with 'middle-aged' pregnancy will not happen to them."

Iman, the model and wife of David Bowie, had her second child at 45. "I was 21 when I had my daughter and I wasn't prepared. Now I'm in a position to be a very different mother with more time and experience," she said.

 

Is it ok to have a child after 45,when the child leaves school the mother will be retiring?

 

I dont think 45 is that bad because the mum might live until the child is 30-odd, but these stories of 60 year olds having a baby is wrong I think because they'll die before the child is an adult.

I dont think 45 is that bad because the mum might live until the child is 30-odd, but these stories of 60 year olds having a baby is wrong I think because they'll die before the child is an adult.

 

I agree in theory with you but life expectancy is growing more and more with advances in medical technology so it is reaching the stage now where the average woman is going to live well into her 80's so someone who has a child at 60 the child will be 25 by the time she dies, I am not saying its right for people to have kids at 60 I am against it but not on the grounds that she will die before the child is an adult as that less and less likely these days

45 isn't too old... 50 is pushing it a bit but I think 45 is ok myself. ^_^

the fact is people are living longer than they used to, and 45 isn't really too bad. I'd say more like 55 onwards would be an issue. Imagine being picked up from school by your mum or dad in one of those electric buggy things :lol:

erm.. 45 is fine.. i is't exactly old, seeing they expect people to work until hey are 75, why shouldn't they have babies.. and tbh it is really nothing to do wth them.

Dr Glasier remarks all seem to be opinion without substance.

 

Being told to save money for the NHS perhaps? :)

 

Having a kid at 45 would seem good. If there is no health issues, I would say the parenting skills and availability of time for the kids are positive facts on a child's life.

Having a child at 45 naturally is no one elses business ...... as long as the mum-to-be is aware of the increases complications / dangers that come with being an older mum.

 

 

But I think if you get to the age of 45+ and then get the urge for a baby - you have to wonder who it is best for - is it right to have a baby just because you want one?

 

 

I don't argee with IVF etc for older women ...... just my personal opinion.

 

I don't agree that every woman has the right to have a baby ....... I have met a lot of mothers that shouldn't be allowed within 10 miles of small children.

 

... but I don't think anyone can comprehend the physically and overpowering control hormones can have until they have experienced them! Rationality is removed which can make these sorts of debates difficult.

better have a kid at 45 then 15!

 

but im 50 and i dont want to father any more kids, my mind set isnt the same as it used to be ..

But there are health risks, a lot of them. For instance, at age 25, a woman has about a 1 in 1,250 chance of having a baby with Down syndrome; at age 35, a 1 in 400 chance; at age 40, a 1 in 100 chance; and at 45, a 1 in 30 chance. The miscarriage rate skyrockets with age, especially over 45. Low birthrates, premature births, and birth defects are hugely increased after age 40. There is also research suggesting the older the man is, the risker the pregnancy as well. I think it's almost irresponsible to have a child so late - I mean think about it, a 1 in 30 chance of Down syndrome??

I agree, the risks do increase significantly, the older the mother is. That is surely something that needs to be seriously considered.

I am in my 30s and don't have any children yet because the circumstances have never felt right. I would like to think I could leave my options open but there will be a point , taking a variety of factors into considersation, at which it will no longer be an option.

 

 

 

I dont think 45 is that bad because the mum might live until the child is 30-odd, but these stories of 60 year olds having a baby is wrong I think because they'll die before the child is an adult.

. . . and lol, parents can still die before their children reach adulthood, no matter what age they have them :cry:

Edited February 26, 200718 yr by snowbaby