The Student Room Group

ITN #12 - Delaying babies 'defies nature'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4248244.stm


Women who wait until their late 30s to have children are defying nature and risking heartbreak, leading obstetricians have warned.
Over the last 20 years pregnancies in women over 35 have risen markedly and the average age of mothers has gone up.

Writing in the British Medical Journal, the London-based fertility specialists say they are "saddened" by the number of women they see who have problems.

They say the best age for pregnancy remains 20 to 35.

Over the last 20 years the average age for a woman to have their first baby has risen from 26 to 29.

The specialists, led by Dr Susan Bewley, who treats women with high-risk pregnancies at Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, warned age-related fertility problems increase after 35 and dramatically after 40.

Other experts said it was right to remind women not to leave it too late.

'Having it all'

In the BMJ, the specialists write: "Paradoxically, the availability of IVF may lull women into infertility while they wait for a suitable partner and concentrate on their careers and achieving security and a comfortable living standard."

But they warn IVF treatment carries no guarantees - with a high failure rate and extra risks of multiple pregnancies where it is successful.

For men, there are also risks in waiting until they are older to father children as semen counts deteriorate with age, they say.

Once an older woman does become pregnant, she runs a greater risk of miscarriage, foetal and chromosomal abnormalities, and pregnancy-related diseases.

They add: "Women want to 'have it all' but biology is unchanged.

"Their delays may reflect disincentives to earlier pregnancy or maybe an underlying resistance to childbearing as, despite the advantages brought about by feminism and equal opportunities legislation, women still bear full domestic burdens as well as work and financial responsibilities."

Dr Bewley told the BBC News website: "We are saddened because we are dealing with people who can't get pregnant or are having complications."

She added: "Most women playing 'Russian Roulette' get away with it, most people are fine. But I see the casualties.

Dr Bewley said: "The best time to have a baby is up to 35. It always was, and always will be."

She added: "I don't want to blame women, or make them feel anxious or frightened

"The reasons for these difficulties lie not with women but with a distorted an uninformed view from society, employers, and health planners.

"Doctors and healthcare planners need to grasp this threat to public health and support women to achieve biologically optimal childbirth."

She added: "Where we can, we should be helping women to have children earlier."

Clare Brown, Chief Executive of Infertility Network UK said "Delaying having children until you are in your thirties is a choice many people make but they need to be aware of the added problems when trying to conceive, particularly over the age of 35 when a woman's natural fertility declines.

"When this is exacerbated by a further complication such as blocked tubes or low sperm count the chances of a successful pregnancy even using IVF are much less."

Peter Bowen-Simpkins, of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said: "The biological clock is one thing we cannot reverse or change.

"The message that needs to go out is 'don't leave it too late'."

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

still wouldn't convince me to have kids before i have a career!

Reply 2

yes - i am shallow

Reply 3

Over the last 20 years the average age for a woman to have their first baby has risen from 26 to 29.
I thought there were more teenage pregnancies than ever? :confused:

And much as this is true/ sad.. teenagers shouldn't have any sort of encouragement to go out and have kids early:s:

My parents were 30, 32 and 35 when they had their kids, and I've always thought that's on the old side, but it's better that they had established careers so we've grown up relatively well-off :dontknow:

Reply 4

I think people expect to have everything to have kids when really you just need a steady income coming in, a place to live and a financial and childcare plan. I plan to start adoption proceddings after I get married next year, I cant wait to have kids. My career doesnt matter to me in the slightest compared to having a family of my own.

Reply 5

Women are more career focused today, and as marriage is less of a certainty I think many women want to be secure in their own right before they think about marriage, children and family business. Priorities have shifted now Europe wide, hence a dramatically ageing population.

My mum was 39 when she had me, she'd had a miscarriage a couple of years before. I'm not sure why my parents waited that long, I think the miscarriage set them back a bit as that's quite an emotional and traumatic experience especially for a woman.

They were both happy and in good jobs and with a house so they didn't need to wait but I think they felt they could give a baby more if they did, in terms of life experience, patience and devotion.

I think I have been better off for having older parents in most ways, they were more tired with me but much more patient and more loving as they had had a large part of their life already and didn't feel they were losing out on anything by having me, rather than being young and not wanting to be tied down. The clear disadvantage is that one of my parents has already died, when I was 18, and arguably if they'd had me when they were younger, then I'd have been older. But nothing is ever certain.

My mum also had health problems during birth, and I'm a bit of a medical disaster as I was premature, whether that is to do with her age or not is fairly unclear but I imagine it played a part in it. I think women need to be careful in balancing "being ready" for a child with being too old for their body to function properly with the additional stresses.

Reply 6

If things were left to nature, most people would have their children in their twenties, because that is when it is best. So I guess it should be given a thought.
Having children does not mean you're loosing out on something - of course you are more tied down, but then there are other things you get. I think having children a a fairly young age is better (if you have the right partner-which you can never be sure of, so just take the plunge), because you are usually healthier, have stronger nerves and are normally capable of being there for your children longer (meaning you'll live to see them grow). Money can be tight, a career is a question that should be seriously considered, but children don't keep you from a career if you really want to have one.

Reply 7

have you read the comments on BBC news?
Some people are so pissed off at the article, but its absolutely bang on.
People can bring out as many anecdotes as they like, simple fact is that pregnancy at an older age is much mroe risky, much more uncertain, fertility has dropped leaving many couples childless (and IVF has a massive failure rate - something many people forget)

its not about having 'old parents' nor the fact older parents ma be better and more able to rpovide.

The BMJ were simply reminding people fo the simple medical fact that you should biologically speaking give birth before 35.

Reply 8

i want my first baby when im between teh ages of 21-26! reason being i feel thats the age best suited...but i probs wont if i cant find someone i love.

Reply 9

I had my daughter when i was just shy of being 20, shes now 9 nearly 10 and i wouldn't change having her when i did for any kind of career. The fact is having a kid young doesn't stop you from studying/working or even partying!! more than anything it makes you motivated, organised and more level headed. I wouldn't have another kid now (late 20's early 30's) because i know how hard it can be and i'm aware of the kind of things that do go wrong. To be honest i think any woman who plans to start a family in their mid to late 30's are brave and i take my cap off to em. I'm glad i get to share my uni adventure with my 9 year old its inspired her no end. :redface:

Reply 10

Leisure17
...children don't keep you from a career if you really want to have one.


No they don't, but having a career doesn't just mean working on the tills at Tesco. It means putting in lots of hours and needing to have a bit of a rest when you get home. The only way most mothers can do this is by having a house husband or a nanny. Personally, I don't see the point in having kids if you're going to hand them straight over to someone else as soon as they pop out.

Snake
People can bring out as many anecdotes as they like, simple fact is that pregnancy at an older age is much mroe risky, much more uncertain, fertility has dropped leaving many couples childless (and IVF has a massive failure rate - something many people forget).


So? Does that mean we should all start having babies at 20, regardless of our finances or the state of our relationships?

This allegedly 'new' research just tells us something we already knew and insults our intelligence - no woman I know assumes that she can easily have babies no matter what her age, and yes, we actually understand that IVF is risky too. Women do not appreciate being treated like retards.

The debates that come out of this give men the perfect opportunity to tell women that they're stupid and selfish. That article's headline might as well be 'Women: Your place is in the home'.

Reply 11

my friend had her second one at 32 and she had some problems docs said were prob due to being an older mother.
I'm 25 and it might be my ideal breeding age or whatever but I've got no biological clock ticking right now, no want for kids at all.
I also think a kid if I ever have one will benefit from me having them at an older age when I'm happy about being a mummy but thats a totally different thing between being physically able to have kids which is what they were getting at.

We've moved on in some ways but it doesn't mean that our bodies have altered that much in the last 100 yrs.

Reply 12

my mum was 38 when i was born and im the eldest, so she was 44 when my little brother was born. None of the pregnancies or births had any problems, in fact the only times she miscarried were when she was younger (i know thats not typical, im just saying)

none of us have lost out anything at all from having older parents (my dad was 40 when i was born) and i see no real way we would have done...there's nothing they could have done differently...... except maybe have more children......

i also dont think im going to want kids until im in my thirties anyway. I want to work of course, but i also want to travel, and thats one of the hardest things ever to do with kids, as well as being more expensive. I think its much more beneficial for both a mother and a child if she has had the experiences she wants to have and knows that she's in a part of life where she really wants to have a baby. Even then i'd have no problem with adoption, although i know that quite often younger mothers are favoured there too......

Reply 13

Meh, I was popped out when my mother was 39 and it didn't do me THAT much harm (I came out blue, have a minor hearing defect, meh nothing serious).

I think it's probably not a good idea, but we're never going to stop anyone doing it.

Reply 14

frost105
I think people expect to have everything to have kids when really you just need a steady income coming in, a place to live and a financial and childcare plan. My career doesnt matter to me in the slightest compared to having a family of my own.


I concur.

Reply 15

LibertineNorth
Meh, I was popped out when my mother was 39 and it didn't do me THAT much harm (I came out blue, have a minor hearing defect, meh nothing serious).

I think it's probably not a good idea, but we're never going to stop anyone doing it.


Cool I was blue too :smile:

Reply 16

Trousers

So? Does that mean we should all start having babies at 20, regardless of our finances or the state of our relationships?

This allegedly 'new' research just tells us something we already knew and insults our intelligence - no woman I know assumes that she can easily have babies no matter what her age, and yes, we actually understand that IVF is risky too. Women do not appreciate being treated like retards.

The debates that come out of this give men the perfect opportunity to tell women that they're stupid and selfish. That article's headline might as well be 'Women: Your place is in the home'.


I don't feel insulted at all by that article; it is the truth after all. Nobody's saying that you have to drop everything and have kids at 20, but the simple fact is that if you DO deliberately delay having children until late 30s/early 40s, there is a much higher chance of miscarriage, complications, birth defects as well as problems conceiving in the first place. There is of course the issue of meeting the right man as well as more practical considerations but nowhere in the article does it say that women must stay at home.

I do feel however, that if women want a career AND children then there does have to be a choice at some point and perhaps you may have to sacrifice a few years of your career to bring them up to school age (or share that with your partner) rather than putting it off to the stage where it's more likely to be dangerous and cost the NHS much more.

There will no doubt be hundreds of anecdotes from people who were born of older parents and turned out fine, but that does not deny the general trend. My mum had me at 36 (she and dad only met 2 years previous to that, so it's not like she'd put it off to have a career!) and my sister at 40 and both of us are fine, but she did have three miscarriages in between us.

Reply 17

Trousers
No they don't, but having a career doesn't just mean working on the tills at Tesco.


Well in my experience being a professional does not mean you can't have kids.

You are right though, that help is needed and many people have a thing about "handing over" their children.
School -> children->then study and have a career can be an answer, that way you can be with your children till they are maybe 3 and 5 years old. Then maybe an Aupair will do it. One partner will have completed his studies by then and will be working, so money shouldn't be a problem. Better he's working from the beginning, meaning he would be 3-5 years older. Once you start work maybe boarding school is an option.
In the end it's such a personal thing I guess there isn't much sense in getting heated about it.

Reply 18

Helenia
I don't feel insulted at all by that article; it is the truth after all. Nobody's saying that you have to drop everything and have kids at 20, but the simple fact is that if you DO deliberately delay having children until late 30s/early 40s, there is a much higher chance of miscarriage, complications, birth defects as well as problems conceiving in the first place. There is of course the issue of meeting the right man as well as more practical considerations but nowhere in the article does it say that women must stay at home.


If you read the BBC 'Have Your Say' page, an awful lot of complaints about the research are from women who simply didn't meet their partners until they were in their mid-30's. I think the article doesn't make enough of this, preferring to suggest women are 'delaying' having children and playing 'Russian Roulette'. That's one of the reasons why I found it a little hard to swallow, along with the great irony of doctors complaining that a woman is 'defying nature' by having kids late when one could argue that their very profession is built on doing just that.

Reply 19

There has been research that women often don't have kids that early because the men do not want to commit, dont "feel up to it", etc. So rather than running the risk of being left alone with a kid they wait for a stable partner, this now being possible.