MADRID, Spain (AP) -- A 67-year-old Spanish woman became the world's oldest mother after she gave birth to twins in the northern city of Barcelona on Saturday, a hospital official said.
The woman, whose identity has not been revealed by Sant Pau hospital, gave birth by Caesarian section on Saturday, having previously undergone in vitro fertilization in the United States.
See the complete article from CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/12/30/old.mom.ap/index.html
Just because we have we can do something does not mean we should do it.
The question I have is why would a doctor do the in-vitro fertilization unless it was for profit or to set a record for the Guinness book. This woman will be 80 when her twins hit their teens and if her life expectancy is normal, then she will be lucky to live that long. Who will care for them after she is gone? Why not adopt or volunteer at a child care place if you want children to play with. The doctor or hospital would seem to be in violation of the hippocratic oath if they are not to provide treatments which are pointless or harmful.
Excerpts from a draft version of the Hippocratic oath that the AMA proposed:
All doctors should observe the core values of the profession which center on the duty to help sick people and to avoid harm. I promise that my medical knowledge will be used to benefit people's health. They are my first concern.
I will not put personal profit or advancement above my duty to patients.
I will not provide treatments which are pointless or harmful or which an informed and competent patient refuses. everybody should get a chance to have their own baby. let god decide when the mother will die. i'm sure there are other people around who can take care of the baby if that happen too early.
you never heard of mother died while giving birth. well, all those kids grow up being nice people even without their mother around.
let's not judge others easily like that.
I agree with diverden. Think of the kid 5-10 years from now... it sounds like a case where the mother is thinking about herself only. If you really consider the child good, you can't get to a decision like this.
I think the doctor is wrong and the lady is crazy. With this information I can only say that this is a crazy world. I would like to know the reasons for them to do that. Being pregnant at 70 must be worst than hell.
I'm generally knackered with my two on the go & I'm in my 20s. I can't imagine twins in my 60s.
If nothing else, think of the life the child will have - I want to be here for my children as long as possible, this woman, by average life expectancy may die by the time her children are in their teens. What will that do to her children?
I'm half agree, but In the other side, I agree with badai
It's not a sin to have kid at that age, and neither of them are forced to do that [the lady, the doctors, or moreover the baby to be born by that old lady]
Maybe she wants to have a chance to have a child too, and she will live for a long time. We shouldn't judge her without knowing the whole situation. I do find it sad for the child if the mom dies but moms die all the time...
As long as the lady was a willing subject. I think this is how science is advanced. With willing participants, partaking in experiments to test the limits of medical ability.
Knowing they can accomplish this may lead to further discovery. Perhaps they will find something that links older less fertile physiology with younger infertile physiology. This is how science works.
I still don't think it should be the norm.
If that is 'how science works', then I don't want science.
Once again science shows what they can, but a lady of 70 years giving birth. Freeky!!
I hope that this isn't the wish of the lady, if it is so that i say: Lady You are nuts!!
That lady could have died with this pregnancy, her body must now be a complete mess. So i would suggest, keep yourself normal and don't start making baby's on any way if your body can't handle it.
Wow. Yeah, it seems like a sort of cruel thing to do. But then again, she probably already knows she may not make it past their teens and has arranged plans with a family member or something to care for them when she dies.
What is this business of "god deciding when the mother will die"? It's such hypocrisy... if you have the belief that everything is in god's hands, and people live and die by his will, then why did this woman have to use science and in vitro fertilisation to conceive? Surely, this is "god's" way of letting this woman know she shouldn't have children!!!
The problem of the matter is, especially in this field, technology has improved far more quickly in the last 200 years than humans have evolved.
Human bodies are not machines, they start to deteriorate & decay at some point. Technology is ultimately boundless, human bodies are not.
IMO, the doctor who authorised this pregnancy is ethically unsound and the geriatric is just plain selfish.
What the hell? This is getting bloody weird.
If I was 67, I'd be living it up in retirement and waiting for grandkids. Not popping out more of the little sprogs.
Some people's priorities are really whacked. 
On a different topic... poor bigdan-- what are the knights going to do without joey johns? 
I don't think any ofus know anow anuff of the story to sayone wayor the other.. but if every one was ok withit and thewomen wasnotforst into doing it i don't see anything rong with it
you can be a mother on every age, but you just know your child a bit shorter | diverden wrote: |
| MADRID, Spain (AP) -- A 67-year-old Spanish woman became the world's oldest mother after she gave birth to twins in the northern city of Barcelona on Saturday, a hospital official said. |
Ok, I definitely have a problem with this. If this woman dies at 70, her twins will only be 3 years old. At such a young age, they'll be orphans and possibly become a burden to the state. Let's say she lives to be 90, her twins will be 23, but she'll may be unable to see, hear or recognise them.
If the kids run into the street while she's out walking with them, how fast can she run after them? Can she cope with many sleepless nights, feeding and nappy changes at this age. And it's not one child but two!
I find this kind of thing both absurd and wrong and it should literally be prevented by law.Man at that age your not supposed to be a mom...your supposed to be a grandmom and if your not yet one then adopt a child...better yet provide support to young ladies with kids (then you will be like a grandmother)
Agreed. Guess if you have to look after your parent as long as she had to it must have been lonely enough for her to come up with a project like this. She must have been quite determined and passionate about it for it to have succeeded past all the rules and regulations. I find it strange that they did not check up on her age. I'm not entirely convinced that they did not know what her real age was. Sad however for her two children. Hopefully they can earn some money from stories in the media. Wonder what she died off in the end, and whether all the hormone treatments she had received in order to get pregnant had anything to do with her death, as perhaps she died earlier than expected given that her mom got to 101?
A good example of the sick perverted uses science is often put to in the developed world.
With millions starving and over a billion hungry every day what is the justification for this?
A selfish old woman thinks she deserves what nature won't give her so she decieves people to get it and at the expense of the taxpayers no doubt.
Why is so much effort and money spent on prolonging and creating life for the rich to enjoy when the poor hardly have a life?
Priorities are all stuffed up I believe.
| paul_indo wrote: |
| Why is so much effort and money spent on prolonging and creating life for the rich to enjoy when the poor hardly have a life? |
Because your so-called "rich", such as I (at least, I understand that the situation I currently am in is much better than many people throughout the world, and quite likely you, of course, I'm nowhere near filthy rich, but neither was this woman, I believe), aren't going to give an exceptional amount of our money away for nothing.
And, yes, understandably you may assume that I'm a prick for saying this-- but, even still, there are people just significantly poor in relativity to you. However, you haven't given away a large majority of your money that would equalize you with them. I almost wonder why. Regardless, this is a discussion for the Philosophy and Religion forum.I have to admire her for her guts though. In a way she has made progress for others by letting them know that everything is possible. All you need to have is something you believe in, and if you believe strongly enough, and work at it, you can make it possible. Also life does not necessarily have to end when you are in your sixties. You can still have dreams and pursue them. I think there is a message of hope in it somewhere. I'm just sorry she died so early, as she did make a calculated guess that she would be living as long as her mother, and that she would be able to take care of her children for an important part of their lives. I still wonder what she died off, and whether it has anything to do with the treatments she had to have, and the pregnancy afterwards.
The doctor's hands were kind of tied on this one I would think. The 3rd paragraph of the Hippocratic oath (original text) states: "I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.", that kind of takes the choice out of the doctors hands. The modern text (see link above) also goes on to state clearly "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy".
Seems pretty clear cut. | Vrythramax wrote: |
| "Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy". |
Wow! Now I'm learning. I never knew that abortion was against the Hippocratic Oath. Pretty amazing. But does look as though the Oath is in need of some renovations to keep in touch with changes in society. Think I like the Oath of Maimonides better. Some Medical Schools use the latter one upon graduation:
| Quote: |
The eternal providence has appointed me to watch over the life and health of Thy creatures. May the love for my art actuate me at all time; may neither avarice nor miserliness, nor thirst for glory or for a great reputation engage my mind; for the enemies of truth and philanthropy could easily deceive me and make me forgetful of my lofty aim of doing good to Thy children.
May I never see in the patient anything but a fellow creature in pain.
Grant me the strength, time and opportunity always to correct what I have acquired, always to extend its domain; for knowledge is immense and the spirit of man can extend indefinitely to enrich itself daily with new requirements.
Today he can discover his errors of yesterday and tomorrow he can obtain a new light on what he thinks himself sure of today. Oh, God, Thou has appointed me to watch over the life and death of Thy creatures; here am I ready for my vocation and now I turn unto my calling.
|
Source: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/rambam-oath.html | deanhills wrote: |
| Wow! Now I'm learning. I never knew that abortion was against the Hippocratic Oath. Pretty amazing. |
I don't think they were talking about abortion when they wrote that. Words have taken on some different meanings since the days that was originally written. I think they were talking more about "abortive action" as meaning something more akin to "assisted suicide". I could certainly be wrong, but it would seem more inline with what the original authors had in mind. Like I know what they were thinking. 
| Vrythramax wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Wow! Now I'm learning. I never knew that abortion was against the Hippocratic Oath. Pretty amazing. |
I don't think they were talking about abortion when they wrote that. Words have taken on some different meanings since the days that was originally written. I think they were talking more about "abortive action" as meaning something more akin to "assisted suicide". I could certainly be wrong, but it would seem more inline with what the original authors had in mind. Like I know what they were thinking. |
I probably need to clue myself up on this. As I did not think about that either. Almost like the Bible, the version we have has been translated so many times, so some of the meanings may have become confusing or obscured.It would have been a miracle if it had happened naturally, science shouldn't just be about what is possible, but about what should be possible. It is perfectly possible to wipe out the population of America with a couple of atomic bombs, science has spent along time developing that technology, do we do it? no, because ethically its not right.
Plenty of kids survive with one or no parents, my dad died when I was a teenager, but he was not in his sixties when he had me. In ten years time those children's mother will be 76, with more than likely the usual health problems that go along with it, many grandparents are not that old, the child will be expected to be a carer from a young age and undoubtedly loose their mother young. The usual role of motherhood is a selfless one, I'm not sure that this is the case here.
My opinion: on a planet that is facing overpopulation problems I think that any artificial fertility is irresponsible, regardless of the age (or economic position) of the mother.
There are thousands of children in orphanages and foster homes who need someone to take them in and provide a caring home for them.
I understand the base drive to pass on ones genes to offspring of one's own loins, but isn't part of being civilized human beings having the ability to overcome instinct through reason?
Since mass murder is a horrific thought, involuntary sterilization is unethical and against the very foundations of a modern civilization founded on individual freedom, abortion is an anathema to so many people on religious grounds, then the only real solution to controlling our population is for people to choose not to get pregnant in the first place, or at least to keep family sizes down to only one or two children and no more.
Mass births - like the Octomom's, and artificial pregnancies outside the norm - such at this sextiginarian's, are irrisponsible in the extreme.
| Jinx wrote: |
| My opinion: on a planet that is facing overpopulation problems I think that any artificial fertility is irresponsible, regardless of the age (or economic position) of the mother. |
Totally agreed. I have no understanding for this, and also wonder whether it is really that healthy either. Quite a number of people in my life who used fertility drugs had twins. And their pregnancies were not that easy either. Imagine the heathcare that is associated with this too, when those same doctors could have treated other people with genuine problems instead. Not good for mental health either, puts pressure on marriage and families. We are certainly living in a very strange world.Unfortunately it seems a given that the majority of the population of the earth doesn't care enough about the overpopulation problems to voluntarily override their own wishes, and if you want to restrict everyone to -for example- one child then you have to equally enforce this to everyone, which is pretty hard...
| Arnie wrote: |
| Unfortunately it seems a given that the majority of the population of the earth doesn't care enough about the overpopulation problems to voluntarily override their own wishes, and if you want to restrict everyone to -for example- one child then you have to equally enforce this to everyone, which is pretty hard... |
True. What is happening in this area, i.e. overpopulation is completely out of whack with reality. Why spend so much money and effort in saving children that nobody wants, orphans, and allow people to still have children without any limits. Does not make sense at all!
By the way, nice to see you back! 
