woman pregnant at 63

[Krazy]

A psychiatrist who is due to become Britain's oldest mother at the age of 63, was criticised last night by IVF groups, sociologists and even a family member.


Despite insisting that "a great deal of thought" had gone into her decision to have a baby, Dr Patricia Rashbrook was described as "mad" and selfish for wanting to become a mother again at such a comparatively advanced age.

Dr Rashbrook, a child psychiatrist who expects the child in two months, made a brief appearance with John Farrant, her husband, outside their home in Lewes, East Sussex, and said they were convinced they had done the right thing.

It was confirmed that Dr Rashbrook underwent fertility treatment in an unnamed European country under the supervision of the Italian doctor Severino Antinori. The cost was said to be £50,000.

Dr Rashbrook, who married Mr Farrant in 2003 after the death of her first husband, Brian Nicholas, appeared at lunchtime outside the couple's £600,000 Regency home and defended her decision.

"We're delighted," she said. "We take our responsibility very seriously and regard the best interests of the child as paramount."

Mr Farrant, 60, an academic, smiled and said: "It is a daunting prospect at our age."

Although Dr Rashbrook's two children, aged 26 and 22, are also reported to be pleased, Valerie Rashbrook - a cousin's wife - did not share their enthusiasm.

"I'm the same age as Patricia and when I look after my grandchildren I'm tired after 10 minutes because of all the mischief they cause," said Mrs Rashbrook, who lives a few miles away in Brighton.

"I really don't know how she is going to manage looking after a newborn child.

"I think she is mad and I think my views are the same as everybody else.

"I can't imagine what she was thinking when she decided to have another child, but it's her choice."

Josephine Quintavalle, from Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said it would be "extremely difficult" for a child to have a mother who would be as old as his grandmother should be.

"Consumer society wants absolutely everything and never stops to think that a child is not a product. She is being selfish and sometimes greater love is saying no.

"You cannot buy life expectancy - that is the most important thing. It is a very worrying development. I do not think that maternal love or the welfare of a child should be equated to financial well-being or a degree."

The campaign group Life said it was not in the best interest of the child to be born to parents of such an age.

A spokesman said: "He or she is going to be without a mother or father at the most crucial moment of adolescence or when that child is growing to maturity. This is not the way to bring a child into the world."

A spokesman for the British Fertility Society wished the Rashbrooks well but said: "We have serious concerns about the infertility treatment of women over 50."

But a statement issued by the couple said: "A great deal of thought has been given to planning and providing for the child's present and future well-being, medically, socially and materially." .


I find this rather strange and i think it is selfish.

[Kari]

I don't really understand it. I mean, of course it is her decision.
But quite frankly, how long will she be able to be there for her child. This may sound cruel, but should you have a child, when the time you can realistically soend taking care is so short. I mean, maybe she will be a hundred years old...but maybe she will only be 70.
And she also puts herself in a pretty dangerous decision...

[Danizinha]

I'm not really sure but I think it's her decision.
I mean...Of course it's strange, because she probably won't live very long and the child will be left without a mother and support.
But when we think about it, there are mothers who die at an early age, when they're kids are still really small. We really can't control life.
So I guess it's ok as long as she leaves responsible people taking care of her child when she dies.

[XDDD]

Those where exactly my thoughts. There are too many chances for her to die before the kid grows up.

And not just that, but how is she going to take care of this kid? I mean, rising a kid it's a lot of work... running after him/her, picking him/her up... she's too old to look after this kid properly.

It is her choice... but this was a pretty selfish choice...
:shrugs:

[Centerfinn]

I remember that other time a woman around 60 had a baby
it was a hole episode on tv about it, but i didnt think someone else would do it
its kind of selfish but i guess its her own choice so im undecided

[Daphnetjuh]

It's her choice to have another baby, but I think it's weird. she already has 2 kids. and she wants one more that kid is 20 when they are 80. They might even die before the child is 18 you'll never know. But hey it's her choice.

[XDDD]

It is her choice... but I think she's just thinking about herself, when making this decision.

True, there's a lot of parents that die of a young age, leaving their kids. But that's life. You can't help those things.
However, this isn't life... she's decided to have a kid knowing that there's a huge chance that she won't be able to be around until the kid is old enough.

[Daphnetjuh]

I can't see why that she is selfish by wanting a child I mean lots of people want a child. I want a child someday. Does that make me selfish??

edit: and yes people die young but that kid is going to be very young when her/his parents die they are already 63. so the day that they die is faster then that one of 28-year-old parents, most of the time

[oclover24]

I said that she is selfish. She's older, and older people tend to be slower at chasing after children. She's not going to be able to give all of herself to the child. I know this girl who's dad is in his 80s, and she seems to feel this underlying resentment to him because he's older, and he can't be there for her all the time.

[XDDD]

She's not selfish for wanting a kid. Wanting a kid is not selfish.
Now, deciding to get pregnant at the age of 63 is selfish, because she's thinking about how much she wants the baby, and not about how responsible it is to have a kid at her age.

Once you're over 40, the risks of having a kid are high for both the mother and the baby. The mother has a higher risk of dying in delivery, the kid has a much higher risk of developing malformations, Down Syndrome and other problems.

And she's not just over 40. She's 63.

Now, if she had gotten pregnant at her age and decided to have the kid, I would be thinking "good for her". But this is just... irresponsible.

[Danizinha]

It is probable that she will die soon, and maybe it wasn't the best decision, but if she chose to have the baby there's nothing we can do about it.

He or she is going to be without a mother or father at the most crucial moment of adolescence or when that child is growing to maturity. This is not the way to bring a child into the world.

I don't think this is a valid argument, since a lot of people loose their parents during their childhood or adolescence. It's not a good thing, but it happens all the time.

[oclover24]

Now, deciding to get pregnant at the age of 63 is selfish, because she's thinking about how much she wants the baby, and not about how responsible it is to have a kid at her age.

You said it perfectly.

[Krazy]

^^I agree there.
I think it's rather silly too, i mean she's not thinking about this child,she's thinking about her own needs. The risk of her health are very high too this could also indanger the child.

[Fading Shadow]

I most definatley think she's being selfish I don't think that she knows what she's doing can possibly harm the child.

[Krazy]

I know i wouldn't want a parent who was 63 years old when they had me.

[Fading Shadow]

Me either i think that would be embarassing.

[Krazy]

i think it would be also, i'm surprised her children are happy about it.

[Fading Shadow]

Me too this whole thing is oh so wierd.

[everwoodisfab]

I think she's being selfish, if she didnt already have children and this was her last chance I could understand it but the fact that she already has kids just makes this decision all the more selfish. She wont be able to look after her kid properly- even if she is fit enough to look after her child now- they will be energetic and young for at least 10 years, so she will still be chasing after a little kid at the age of 73- in no way will she have the energy to do that. People are saying that it is ok for her to have a child knowing that she will be dead when it is still young because that happens alot with younger parents anyway but in no way does that make it ok, I have teenage friends whose mother is dead, and they are so upset and have gone through so much because of that. I really dont think she should be allowed to have this child.

[Krazy]

I know one thing if she hasn't ever had kids before, but she's got 2 already. Imagine her coping during the kid's teenage years if she lives that long.

[everwoodisfab]

^exactly, if I had a pensioner for a mother I wouldnt go to her about anything- she wont be able to empathise

[Annika.]

That's just horrible, she will probably die before her children are grown up, if she's not one of the very few people who live 80 years and longer.
I would be very embarassed if there's a school party and all the other parents are 30 years younger than mine or if they ask me whether I brought my grandmother...

[Andrew]

I don't think it's selfish. Unorthadox? Somewhat... but still, who am I/we to really judge?

And just thinking about it mathetically, she'll probably still enjoy/be apart of raising the child.

She's now 63. Adding on the 18 years for the child to reach adulthood and she'll be 81. The average life expectacy is around 85-ish... though averages are usually flawed (I know of many elderly people peaking 90), and considering the fact that she did manage to get pregnant so far past the "usual age" probably shows her body isn't so nimble/prone.

There have been steeper (albeit not by much) situations... not the "birth part" but just situations where an elderly person takes the obligatory role of taking care of a baby/toddler.

For example: The grandmother has to raise her granddaughter since her daughter/the child's mother was killed or is going through something (like rehab)

However, the "complications with age" thing comes up when it comes to the actual birth. That I agree with, being that there are more risks. But again: to each his own.

If she wants to attend a PTA meeting one week, and replace her bad hip the next, then that's on her :shrugs:

[HappyHamster]

I think there's quite a difference between an elderly person taking up the role of parent due to some tragic event and an elderly person consciously choosing not to be there for a large part of their child's life. A parent can always die, but the chance that she (or her husband) dies before their child is a legal adult is far greater. And say she reaches the average age of 85, her child would still only be 22. Which for me was a time of many changes (and I think it's a confusing time for many people) where I didn't always want the help of my mummy but the thought that she was there if I needed her was reassuring.

[emzyxx]

I agree with you having a baby at the age of 63 is not gd. That child will be picked on when it goes to school due to her age. It will not be fair on that child. That child will have a lot of problems later in its life.

[seth_is_my_baby]

I don't think she is being selfish. I mean, a woman knows how to look after kids. Just because you get older, doesn't mean you forget how to raise kids. It's a risk to have a child at that age, but they said she is totally up to it, and she's got other children if anything happens to her.

Anyone can die, even a 25 year old mother, but if she wants another a child, then good luck to her!

[Krazy]

Lets face it, even if the mother does live to be 81, she may have memory loss, artheritis, deafness etc. How will she actually be benefiting her child like that???

[Webeh]

I just have to say that the parents (both are elderly I believe) better hope their child is pretty self-sufficient by 15. It is around that time that the son/daughter will have to start worrying about losing his/her parents.

[Akira14]

She underwent under fertility treatments, it's not like she's been pregnant because of natural causes.
I know that science is supposed to make our life better, but if we stop being fertile at a certain age that must be a reason, right?
It's not just selfish of her, it's even pretty useless by scientists...Who should help younger couples who could not have children for health (connected to their fertility) problems.

[XDDD]

The average life expectacy is around 85-ish...

It's not just about the life expectacy, but also about in which conditions she will be when she's 80. Will she be able to take care of a kid, or will she need too be taken care of? Because, let's face it, at the age of 85-ish, you're old. And there's a lot of people who have to deal with different health issues at that age... and a lot of them have to depend on other person to help them.

^^ those doctors are not charity... the woman pays, she gets the treatment... no matter how old she is

[Akira14]

^^ those doctors are not charity... the woman pays, she gets the treatment... no matter how old she is

Yeah...What I meant is: instead of losing time making research on how to get older women pregnant, because I guess it's even more difficult than with younger ones, they should use their time trying to figure out better way to help out the younger couples.

[Krazy]

She underwent under fertility treatments, it's not like she's been pregnant because of natural causes.
I know that science is supposed to make our life better, but if we stop being fertile at a certain age that must be a reason, right?


i agree there ;)

[GCL]

I think that she's selfish. Like said above, there must be a reason why she can't get pregnant the natural way.

[Krazy]

^^^Exactly it wasn't meant to be...

[torypops]

I think she's being selfish because she is thinking more about what she wants and less about what's best for the child. Sure this kid is gonna have a good and comfortable start to life and that in itself is more than a lot of children have, but to me the most important part of being a parent is being there for your child when he/she needs you and in this case there is definately a bigger time limit on the being there part than nature permits.

[hypnoticavenger]

I'm undecided.

[Ashlyn]

I hate to bring this issue up, but -- financially, she can probably take care of this child, very well. Age isn't the only issue in raising a child. If we start setting limits, even in our minds on who CAN have kids.. well, i can' just see that going to a very bad place. If this woman wants the kid badly enough, she must surely have some understanding of what she is undertaking. I'm a firm believer in the idea that an extremely loving home is what matters most, and this woman obviously wants her child very badly.

[Krazy]

^^Money doesnt make happiness so no matter how much money the child has, it wont make them well off emotionally loosing parents before they are adults.

[Ashlyn]

But a child raised in money has considerable advantages over a child raised in poverty. I mean, if we're going to crucify this woman for irresponsibly having a child at her age, where does it end? If we are going to say people in a certain age bracket can't have kids, why not a certain financial bracket? The point i'm making is that I don't believe we as a society can judge a woman's decision to have kids or not have kids, especially considering none of us know her personally.

[Bely]

i think she's being selfish..very selfish! there's a reason why women go in to menopauze! it's nature's way of preventing women of her age to have kids!

[Krazy]

A lot of the woman's family(who do know her personally) have said she is making a big mistake. A bigger cheque book is hardly going to give these parents more years to live and a barrier from physical problems that affect people of their age or will do in 5 years eg artheristis,memory loss etc. I just dont get the fact they are rich will make this child happy. Though you must know i do understand what you are saying but like always i disagree ;) :tongue:

[Ashlyn]

I'm not saying their money will necessarily make the child happy, but there are many things required to provide for a child. You are totally right in the argument that they will likely die before this child is really old. I can see your point there. However, there are so many things that go into raising a child, and it seems like the fact that they REALLY want a child is an obvious plus. So many kids are unwanted, or unloved, or don't get enough attention at home. I mean, okay, yeah -- it's possible this child will resent his/her parents for their age. But it's also possible that a child will resent his parents for their lack of money, or that they are child number 22, but we can't put a limit on how much money a set of parents should have, or how many they can have, so I don't see how it's fair to do it with age.

[Krazy]

The parents can provide for this child yes with their money but when their that old can they really be chasing around after children(babies are a huge handful, i would know). Most likely they'll just get a nanny or hire some help which is totally pointless because then they arent bringing the child up itself. Lets face it the child is very likely to resent it's parents, like you said some do if they're poor but arent millions of people poor?How many people can you and the child name that have parents that are 64?it'd just make the child feel like a outcast. I just feel that their is a reason why people that age cant have children naturally and why it isnt recommended.

[everwoodisfab]

yes there are other factors which would effect how good a parent would be but that doesnt stop this one being as important as it is

[Krazy]

The woman has had the baby now:
She gave birth to 6lbs 10ozs 'JJ' in a trouble-free elective caesarean on Wednesday morning with her 60-year-old husband John by her side.

Speaking exclusively to the Daily Mail, Mrs Farrant said she was "overjoyed" with her beautiful new son, adding: "Seeing him for the first time was beyond words.

"I had some apprehensions before the birth, but it all went very smoothly and entirely to plan. JJ is absolutely beautiful, a perfect small person.

"He has a very agreeable personality and it's a privilege to welcome him to the family. He's very laid-back and we're enchanted by his presence.

"The whole thing has a dream-like quality and we're very much looking forward to taking him home."

Mrs Farrant, who has three grown-up children from a previous marriage, paid £10,000 for IVF treatment using a donor egg at a clinic in the former Soviet Union.

The couple had to be treated abroad because fertility clinics in Britain will not help women over 55, and their treatment was supervised by controversial Italian fertility expert Professor Severino Antinori.

Mr Farrant, a hugely proud first time father, said: "When I first held him I was simply awestruck. I thought 'Here he is after all this waiting and we'll be together forever because I'm his daddy'. "I feel a huge sense of responsibility and tremendous love for him."

Despite admitting that he had never wanted to have children before he married Patti, Mr Farrant added: "By some amazing miracle I am a father. I feel completely different and that life will never be the same again. To me that's super, something I never thought would happen."

'We would not have gone ahead if we'd felt we would not be good enough parents'

Baby Farrant, who has been nicknamed JJ until his parents settle on a name, was born under the care of the NHS at the Royal Sussex County Hospital in Brighton.

Mrs Farrant, a child psychiatrist known professionally as Dr Patricia Rashbrook, has made a speedy recovery from the birth and is able to breast-feed her son, who has a healthy appetite.

Among the first visitors after the birth were Mrs Farrant's three older children Caroline, 26, a doctor, William, 22, a student, and 18-year-old Charles.

"They were absolutely enchanted with their brother when they saw him," said Mrs Farrant. "They all had a little cuddle with him and had their photographs taken with him. They were relieved that the operation had gone so well. My adult children have been wonderful throughout."


The couple have been strongly criticised in some quarters for having a baby at such an advanced age, but Mrs Farrant said: "We would not have gone ahead if we'd felt we would not be good enough parents.

"We are both extremely healthy and I have always looked and felt very young, but nevertheless we have younger friends with children who have agreed to act as surrogate parents should anything happen to us.

"What is important in parenting is not how old you are, but whether you are meeting all the child's needs and we are very confident about doing that."

Despite the fact that she is not biologically JJ's mother, Mrs Farrant said: "My feelings for him are essentially the same as if the egg from which he grew were biologically mine. I carried him for nine months, my body nurtured him. To me there is no substantive difference."

Mrs Farrant added: "I have felt enormously supported by the medical teams at the hospital both during and after the birth. The care that we have been given has been superlative at every level."

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y95/Bangel4ever/mother070706_228x282.jpg


All is well not we'll just have to see if it lasts or how long it'll last.

[ThePowerOfWent]

I say good on her! She wants a baby, so she should have one. She would never have been able to undergo IVF treatment if she wasn't in good health, so obviousy she is fairly healthy.

Now, if this were a man fathering a child at 63, or even 93, as some men have, we'd be saying 'He's still got it in him', 'Good luck to him', and 'Congratulations', but because it's a woman having a child so late in life, we have to condemn her decision?

As for why she couldn't get pregnant naturally, that would probably be due to something called menopause.

[yogafan]

wow, why i think this is the parents choice i do think this is a highly dangerous situation both to parent and child. While i do think everyone has a right to have kids, this person is being selfish. I do not think it is fair to have children if you are not able to be active with them, now not knowing the person, maybe they are really fit and energetic but my parents are exhausted when we come over with the girls for an afternoon (my mom 55 my dad 60) and we are there, so how does this 63 year old woman expect to go through months of sleepless nights and take care of a newborn...crazy really...also i agree with apperances..everywhere she goes people will ask her about her grandchild and she will have to deal with having to explain that she is the parent...and then when the child reaches school age...imagine having a 68 year old parent dropping their child off to kindergarten...wow that would be hard...also more than likely this parent won't be around when it comes time in the childs life where they need them most...teenage years...by the time the child is 13 the mom will be 76---you can't expect a 13 year old to care for a parent and adjust to puberty and highschool....aw this actually irritates me, if my mom wanted to have another child i would tell her to adopt!!!