66yr old gives birth to triplets.

Sarah - posted on 06/15/2010 ( 17 moms have responded )





A few issues caught my eye with this, the first is obviously that perhaps 66 is too old to be having triplets.
The second is that perhaps these women are under pressure to provide an heir for their husbands.
The third is that the oldest mother in the world has now told people that she is dying, and is hitting out at the clinic for "not explaining the risks to women of having babies later in life"

Your thoughts?


Lucy - posted on 06/15/2010




Obviously, 66 is far too old to be having babies, especially by further impoverishing an already poor family by engaging in IVF.

Having said that, I do feel sympathy for the parents, especially the mother. In rural India, the stigma of being a childless wife is SO enormous, these women literally become social pariahs. Their presence at social occasions is considered very bad luck, and they may be ridiculed and spat at in the street. We are talking a seriously miserable life, so I can see the desperation these women can feel to provide an heir for their husbands.

When you add to that the fact that, on the back of older Indian women who are desperate to conceive, the fertility business in India is booming (and largely unregulated), you have an impossible situation. The woman this particular article is about is almost completely uneducated, and has only ever left her isolated rural village for her IVF treatment. The fertility doctors in India are encouraged to perform riskier and riskier treatments by the celebrity and, lets face it, money they receive due to their trade. There is real competition amongst such doctors to be the one to help the oldest woman conceive, and no legal obligation for them to fully inform the patients about the risks involved.

This woman, and now, unfortunately her children, are the victims of modern greed and industry benefiting from the ingrained cultural beliefs of poor communities.

Becky - posted on 06/15/2010




I think it is extremely unethical of this clinic to be providing fertility treatments to women this age. They are exploiting the culture and desire for a child just for money and fame. Instead, they should be educating women about the risks of having children at such an advanced age and encouraging them to explore other options if they really wish to have children in their lives.
I do think it is wrong to have a child so late in life. It's unfair to the child(ren), who may be put in the position of having to care for their parents before they even reach their teens, or lose their parents at a very young age. But I blame the doctors providing the fertility treatments for making it possible, more than I blame the families themselves who are faced with so much societal pressure to have children.

Jocelyn - posted on 06/15/2010




Wonderful. Now the one woman is going to die before her child reaches 2 years old, and the 66 yr old, what in the hell can she offer her children?
How fucking selfish.

Zoe - posted on 06/15/2010




it is disgusting . hope i dont offend anyone but there is a reason women go through the menopause what can the 2 women possibly offer to their children it should be illeagal for a woman of that age to have kids. not just because of the age because of the risks involved aswel

This conversation has been closed to further comments


View replies by

Tanya - posted on 06/17/2010




I agree with Meghan it not my place to say when anyone els e should have or stop having kids. I would not want to put a child through that. I started at 26 and plan to be done by 35. I know that the risks to both mother and child increase at 35.

Meghan - posted on 06/16/2010




I really think this whole thing is NUTS!!! I don't think it is fair to the children...
It's not my place to decide who should/shouldn't have kids...but personally I have a hard enough time keeping up with my son at 23 years old..a small part of me gives these woman props and wishes them well!

Sharon - posted on 06/16/2010




thats rough.

All women who want to be mothers, should be a mother. But living in poverty, being of advanced age, and on the verge of dying? Its not fair to the child, but it seems like their culture doesn't care about that.

On the other hand, they aren't living on welfare and qualified for loans which is more than most of the USAs poor can say.

Joanna - posted on 06/15/2010




My two thoughts were, one, it's sad that these women are risking their lives to provide children for these reasons, and two, it's selfish of them to bring children in this world when they are at an age that they could die or go senile any day.

Jaime - posted on 06/15/2010




Wrong--no. Disgusting--no. Foolish--yes. Extremely risky--yes. Ethically questionable on the part of the fertility centre that did the IVF treatment--hells ya!

Yes these women and their husbands should have been better informed about the serious risks of having children past the age of 45. The problem in this scenario and that of the oldest woman in the world, is that they were not given the full scope of the situation. And I have to wonder...were they educated enough to even know to ask such questions? Not likely. If this treatment centre is boastful and proud of putting the lives of 4 children seriously at risk of being orphans before they learn to walk because their parents are dead or dying...then it is more about money than helping people that desperately want children. Having children is selfish and self-serving for everyone...not just these women, so that's not the issue for me. The issue is education...being informed before making such important decisions and bringing lives into the world when the parents are not aware of the health risks to themselves. The stress of caring for an infant would be extremely difficult for an ailing or aging elderly man or woman to cope with.

Caitlin - posted on 06/15/2010




Ooooo.. I had a distant relative of some nigerian prince once and could have inherited a coupla million.. but I didn't have enough to pay the trasfer fees *sigh*

Sorry.. bad joke.. I think it's unethical for them to be doing it and exploiting these women because their culture is so patriarchal, but on the other hand, I don't feel that a good excuse not to do it is "because the mother will die sooner and the child could be stuck caring for their mother.." because in reality, it could happen to a 30 year old with kids just as easily (though less likely i'll admit, but cancer strikes at any age) My husband lost his father to cancer when he was 18, so it coulod really happen to anyone. The reason not to do it SHOULD be the risks to the mother and baby/babies..

Tracey - posted on 06/15/2010




I believe in this case a male heir was needed or the family land would have been given to a distant relative, Still think it is completely wrong though.

*Lisa* - posted on 06/15/2010




The poor kids. At their 20th b'day their mum will be 86... if she makes it.

Amie - posted on 06/15/2010




They were poor farmers?! /:) Good grief. If you're going to go through that much trouble to get pregnant. (Taking out loans for the IVF treatments) Wouldn't you check into all possibilities of what could happen with this?

She's an idiot. My god.

Amie - posted on 06/15/2010




Ok 1) Yes 66 is too old to be having children. It's not right for men or women. I wish men went through a male menopause so their swimmers would stop but oh no, they get the easy life. Pffttt!!!
2) IF they want an heir that badly, adopt.
3) You have to be brain dead to NOT know the older you get, the harder pregnancies are. Not only on you but the baby(ies). She is an idiot.

I'm going to go read the articles now.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms