And Another Thing…

“But what’s even more unfair is knowing that a child is born with the near certainty of being left motherless before it reaches its teens, or will spend their formative years as a carer.”

Is an interesting idea. Should people with a near-certainty of dying youngish from degenerative conditions not be allowed to have children also?

It’s not a question of them not being “allowed” – it’s a question of whether the state should actively intervene (in the form of IVF) to give such a woman a child when otherwise it wouldn’t have happened. And I would say that in those circumstances the state should not intervene.

“Having a child, becoming a parent is a privilege, not a right.”

Do tell, who administers these “privileges”?

You? The State?

Any framework or guidance for IVF must be based on principles which should, in my opinion, include the principle that no-one has the “right” to a child.

There must be guidelines, so as a society we should decide what goes in them. Whatever is included, there will be some who disagree with them. Tough, this government lark, isn’t it? Must look easy from the outside.

Or to be a Dad.

Couldn’t agree with you more! I would (and have) go as far as saying it shouldn’t be allowed on the NHS at all.

http://cardiffblogger.co.uk/archives/should-ivf-be-available-on-the-nhs-for-lesbians

You’re too sensible for the Labour Party, Mr Harris, but as long as you’re in Parliament it’s better for it.

I don’t believe it’s a woman’s right to have children but then I don’t believe it’s acceptable for a 60 plus year old man to impregnate a 20 year old woman and be congratulated.

As for this particular woman. She’s in good health, her husband is a few years younger than her, by all accounts she’s not a drug addict or an alcoholic yet you infer if she was younger, a drug addict and/or an alcoholic and not in a stable relationship it would be fine for the woman to have a child. Her present child is loved – anyone can see that.

Tom this isn’t about age, it’s about your problem with ageism. I agree she’s selfish wanting another child particularly when the child will not be biologically hers as the egg is from a pre-menopausal woman.

Many women, for various responsible reasons, only have one child.

What is it with socialists that they are so concerned with older parents dying before their children are adults yet they encourage silly younger women to have as many as they wish by their socialist policies?

Very sensible, but I have a feeling there would be many people on the weird parts of the Labour party who will have a go at you for discrimination or some such lark. Even though I’m going to be going Blue this year, I’d vote for you! Can’t all the sensible buggers from all the parties just get together, stick two fingers up everyone and start the “Rather quite sensible” Party?

I say that 60 is too old to become a parent. As men tend not to live as long as women, it is even more irresponsible. Just because it is usually still physically possible without copious amounts of drugs doesn’t make it right.

Women have plenty of opportunity to become mothers; roughly 35-40 years. It shouldn’t take that long to make up your mind. Those that are so indecisive they get past the ‘deadline’ should accept that the decision has been made for them.

On the basis that becoming a parent is a privilege, not a right, I also think that IVF should not be available on the NHS. Infertility is not an illness; it is not a matter of physical health. Anyone wishing to undergo fertility treatment should be required to pay for it. When we cannot afford (in England anyway) drugs for people suffering from debilitating illnesses/conditions, we should not be diverting resources to people for IVF.

Tom – two things.

What about people in Africa who have no IVF but where the life expectancy is 42 ?

Are you suggesting that it is wrong for them to have children at 20 ? Especially as they are at above average risk of dying while the child is growing up.

2/ This is a rather academic debate, as you have spent so much money [or, to be fair, the bankers have..] that spending cuts of the ‘slash-and-burn’ variety are soon to be mandated by Merv the Swerve King on poor Alistair Darling…

As I’ve said earlier in this thread (does no-one read previous comments before they post one themselves?) this isn’t about “preventing” or “allowing” people to have babies. It’s about wehether science and/or the state should activelt intervene in cases where a woman has reached the natural end of her child-bearing days. And I’m coming down on the “no” side of the argument.

I’m not going to take a legalo-philosophical distinction tonight on the right/privilege issue. For my part, I decided six years ago not to progress a relationship because the woman wanted more children. We met following her divorce. I was then just 50.

I felt I was too old…I was motivated entirely by a worry that if I died I would not be able to provide sufficiently for the child and, obviously, be there for the child, which is rather more important.

That was a personal choice and the woman who already had two children (I have no children) accepted it. My concerns were, surprisingly, dismissed by the woman who felt that she could easily bring up the child on her own – which I didn’t find a terribly helpful point to raise in the discussion at the time.

There are, however, many men and women who have children later in life and very successfuly for the children. It is difficult to draw the specific line but, obviously with the so-called death zone being 50 – 65, the risks are just a bit higher.

For me, it isn’t about provision – although that is important. For me – the child has a right to have parents – hopefully two parents if that is possible?

For my part, I could not take the risk of dying and not being there for the child – even if my then partner would be. She was also 50.

Difficult issue.

We have all seen children abused simply because the parents do not have the skills, the will, the humanity to bring children up properly. If there was no abuse, there would be no need for foster care, for Barnardos et al.

Fortunately, the majority do care deeply about children and make decisions based not on their happiness exclusively, but also on the needs of the child… so is it a right to have a child? .. yes.. it is in any decent and equal society (which we all strive for ?) … but it is also a privilege to have a child, I would have thought and with that comes selfless responsibility… I would have thought? .

I am, of course, using the term privilege in a different way.

I am available for flame grilling only on Wednesday evenings!

[...] the paper that she plans to use In vitro fertilisation (IVF) to have a baby.  The MP, Tom Harris, contends that the state should be able to ban IVF at that age because “of course 60 is too old to become a [...]

Tom, you say:

“It’s about wehether science and/or the state should activelt intervene in cases where a woman has reached the natural end of her child-bearing days. And I’m coming down on the “no” side of the argument.”

Unfortunately, you cannot simply leave it at that, because your piece raises the question (as many in this thread have pointed out) of whether the state should intervene in or fund anyone’s child-bearing. If having children is not a right, as you state in your post, then the logically consistent position is to believe that the state should not have any part in funding or providing for conception.

Do you agree that the state should not fund IVF and other fertility treatments, period? Or is your “no” limited only to would-be parents of a certain age?

Fair point about the science / state intervention… trouble is… bloggers and others do like to jump in some times… good post though and good discussion!

It would be rather dull if our advocacy / politics / principles views persuaded everyone to our view… the Utopia would then become dystopic… we would have no debate. Fortunately… that isn’t going to happen because we are humans… we like chaos and a degree of conflict!

Tom you say:

“this isn’t about “preventing” or “allowing” people to have babies. It’s about wehether science and/or the state should activelt intervene in cases where a woman has reached the natural end of her child-bearing days. And I’m coming down on the “no” side of the argument.”

For me, anyone who uses the term “natural” loses any argument because if humanity had ever left its progress to nature there would not have been any progress-and probably many contributors to your comments section would already have died from “natural” causes.

Don’t forget that a considerable number of scientists believe that people born in the 21st century in the developed countries are likely to live for an average of 100 years (kind of puts 60 into perspective)

Another sensible post, but I must point out New Labour’s complicity in the whole rights/diversity/equality industry that has led to women delaying starting a family because of their ‘careers’ and then they fall for the eugenicists’ ‘family planning’ and only have one or two children. After a couple of decades, some realise that families are far more important than careers. I say they have lost their chance when their age prohibits natural childbirth, but I also deplore the social engineering that has made many modern women think the way they do on family matters.

being a libertarian is all well and good (old Holborn), but pick your fights a bit more carefully will you, having a child is not a right of OAP’s. it is a privalege to those that do (usually), and a right to those that can, but a right for 59 year olds? you have forgotten what you stand for. On a more sensible day you would have flung your laptop out the window in disgust at such a story. it is messed up that grannies are having babies. what would Jefferson think of it? it is a crime against nature worse than most of the things the government does. and the government is pretty bad

I believe it is personal choice so long as i do not have to pay for it, as we will in this case. When the mother dies the childs upbringing will be paid for with my taxes.
We have produced people who are so selfish and want the tax payer to provide them with everyting. Labour have not done one single thig to discourage it. in fact they have increased peoples expectations and are continuing to do so even now.

Agreed – and its also a waste of NHS money and resource at a time when we have no resources left to waste. Just to make one selfish woman happy. What she wants to do can in no way be considered to be “good” for society – so why should we pay for it?

AFAIK there is also a much higher probability of mental and physical defects to children born of older parents.

When these kids are 10-12 their mother will be well over 70 and basically unable to keep up with them.

I’m also fed up with hearing “its my right!”

We hear it all the time now: “Its my right to have as many kids as I like and the state should pay for them”. We have population issues (globally not just nationally). Fund support for two kids – any more than that & no more additional benefits – YOYO!.

And I do think IVF should be out of reach to people over 50 (if not 45). Last thing we need is any more state funded, dysfunctional families. So many of our social problems and problems in schools, with alcohol abuse, drug abuse, lawlessness etc start and end in the home because of a lack of a family structure and the basic discipline, respect and self reliance it can teach.

Ed Balls and his ilk and their “New age” parenting/family concepts have a lot to answer for

Two parents, one male, one female, work, discipline – its a winner

“where a woman has reached the natural end of her child-bearing days.”

At what age do you actually define this as. I actually agree with you that 60 is too old for IVF and I work for the only national older peoples organisation in Scotland. I dont like the use of term natural as the menopause can be as late as 60 in the real world and as early as the end of puberty.

Do you think that work should be done to advocate the end of late natural pregnancies (after all your arguement about the rights of the child would still stand – perhaps induce menopause at 50 in all women?) and but continue to allow IVF for early menopause sufferers?

By using the term natural you would have to tell a 20 year that, despite having the ability to help her, because of nature she does not get to conceive a child.

Where would you actually draw the line?

If an auld wummin has a wean and takes care of the wean as opposed to the youngsters that have weans and are more interested in neglecting the weans for such things as bevvy and drugs and neglecting the weans education then auld wummin keep doing the business.

If the woman wants to fund this out of her own pocket then it is none of our sodding business. Obviously the NHS shouldn’t fund it, it isn’t a right.

If she pays to go abroad and have it done then we would gladly pick up the cost of rearing any British child who has had the misfortune of having its mother die. Anyone want to argue with that statement?

Tom, you may want to seriously reconsider this statement: “There is a very good reason why nature, in its wisdom, decided that women should face a cut-off point after which they can no longer conceive: it makes it far more likely that when a baby is born, one parent or another will be around long enough to look after it.” An appeal to nature… don’t want to go down the Poe road, but if we allow nature to decide what we can and can’t do then let’s put our antibiotics down the sink and close our hospitals…

It is my personal opinion that the State should not be financing the production of babies. If individuals (male or female) cannot conceive naturally, then they have a perfect right to seek help – at their own expense. That is not to say that the NHS should not help to cure problems which stop natural conception – I mean actual physical problems, not age related problems.

If an individual, grown-up persons decide to have a child, at their own expense, regardless of age, that is their right. It has nothing to do with the State. Arguments that the cost of the care of the child might fall upon the State are fatuous since the future cannot be foretold in detail – they may or may not, and the chances are no different as compared with any other situation. Mere statistics are irrelevant.

There is already far too much interventionist thinking in this country. I suppose that it is a consequence of too much wealth (for the few, especially MPs). If we all stopped bothering about what people do with their own lives at their own expense (in the same way that we do not bother about how the really wealthy people afford their multiple homes, etc), then we would all be better able to concentrate our attention on the real and manifest injustices and stupidities which surround us – eg, crazy non-citizens who should not be in this country and who want to blow us all up in order to make space for fellow nutters.

You’re right, Tom, to criticise Mrs Tallofsen’s assertion that ‘Every woman has the right to be a mother.’ It’s plainly wrong. It’s nothing to do with ‘rights’, it’s consumerism. She’s buying that baby simply because she can, in her case going to Russia for IVF treatment, and hang the consequences.

In the meantime, the NHS’s policy on IVF is very confused, since each PCT has different guidelines. In some areas a woman deemed too young for IVF (eg under 35) would be considered too old in another. The fact that it’s offered on the NHS at all is more to do with addressing a specific medical problem that the mother may have (eg blocked fallopian tubes), and then it’s limited to a number of cycles (which again, confusingly varies from area to area). Some people, of course, object to it being treated on the NHS at all. They’re usually people who are also convinced that thousands of people are draining the NHS by having free liposuction and boob jobs. I think that’s a myth – there may be a few people who have to have fat removed for an operation, or reconstructive surgery after a mascetomy. Cosmetic surgery per se isn’t done on the NHS.

Spot on with your post Tom, I agree with every word you’ve said.

This woman is 60, barring a freak of nature she would not be able to get pregnant naturally at her age, so this is not compensating for her natural lack of fertility at child bearing age; this is a misuse of the science involved, it is also an act of such utter selfishness it takes the breath away.

And you are absolutely right that becoming a parent is not a right – it is grotesque when people begin to think that having money means that it should be.

Why should the state provide IVF in the first place?
Why should the state prescribe who qualifies for a service supposedly free to all at the point of use?

I agree that IVF should not be funded from the public purse. That, however is an entirely different argument from your headline, and assertion that a 60 year old mother is “selfish”. Are you actually saying that every child has a right to a young, healthy set of parents? Are there any other conditions you’d set? How about educated, in gainful employment, and slightly left of centre politically? The welfare of a child is at no more risk from an old parent than a thousand other factors.

I think it’s completely outrageous for the NHS to pay for IVF treatment at any age.

It’s not an illness, as has been said above,it’s an indulgence.

If it’s paid for privately, then a major objection to the late age pregnancy would be the need for the tax payer to fund the child when the mother dies.

But my main quarrel is with anything at all which increases population.

Gross over population is the cause of almost every ill in the world, and I’d be in favour of research radically to reduce it, not increase it.

If she were asking the state to fund the IVF then I would agree with you 100%. As she is not your argument is fatuous and irrelevant.

She’s 60. It’s not uncommon for women to live into their 80s now so there’s a fairly good chance she could still be alive when the child is 20.

By your argument anyone with a serious illness should not receive any help with IVF regardless of age. Does this currently apply?

I agree with several other posters here. The NHS has NO business at all funding IVF for anyone.

As she is not your argument is fatuous and irrelevant
—————–
No it isn’t fatuous and irrelevant. Regardless of whether IVF is paid for by the NHS or not (slightly irrelevant to this argument) the science which allows IVF is regulated and governed. This procedure could not be undertaken here, because it would not be licensed for a woman of her age, for all the reasons that have been detailed above.

To extend the eligibility for legal IVF to anyone regardless of age would, I think, require amendment of existing legislation. Like Tom I would oppose any such amendment to allow babies on demand.

That would be completely unethical.