When is Too Old well Too Old?

[El Salsero Gringo]

I don't think age or 'ability' has anything to do with "quality" of parenting, which is, er, qualitative.

In that case, what is your objective to providing fertility treatment for older couples?

[El Salsero Gringo]

But you cannot deny that it would be better for that child's quality of life to have a father as well as a mother. An 80 year old is already 'beyond' the average male life expectancy. Of course a child could lose his or her father at any time through illness or accident. But dying of old age is a dead (sic) certainty at some point or other and is way more likely for an 80 year old than a 50 year old.

I can, and do deny it at least as far as the flaw your reading of the statistics. The average life expectancy for a man *at birth* in the UK is 76. The average life expectancy for a sixy year old man in good health is much much higher - around 90. If a 60 year old fathers a child by natural or assisted means then he is likely to live until the child is 30. Is that old enough for you?

[David Bailey]

Of course they do. They make decisions based on lots of criteria. That doesn't mean that age alone is one of them - or that if it is that it's correct. (There are lots of criteria about whether to provide fertility treatment to couples - including the probability of success which is age related. BUT - I don't accept that age alone is should be a bar to parenthood.)

Actually, I don't actually have a major position on the whole "Is it too old" issue, but I haven't had a good argument in, ooh, days...

The incredibly New-Labour-speak UK government consultation paper says "Children’s ethnic origin, cultural background, religion and language will be fully recognised and positively valued and promoted when decisions are made."

It also talks about "stakeholders"

And it seems specific criteria are up to the local authorities.

But buried in the jargon, there's a section saying

"...The application form should ask for details about the applicants that enable legal and agency eligibility criteria to be checked. This should include details of:
• marital status, nationality, domicile, ethnicity, language, religion, age, criminal convictions;..."
(my emphasis)

So, age is a consideration for adoption.

The eighty-year old has as little choice over his age as the wheelchair bound has over his disability.
They could both choose not to have children - if they so wished. In both cases they will both have decided that the child will not be disadvanged by their own parenting. So I don't follow your distinction.

The distinction is that a man of 80 has had quite a few earlier years, in which he presumably chose not to be a parent - that's the choice part of it. Whereas someone in a wheelchair may not have ever had such a choice.

Even if they did, it wouldn't make it right. Besides, they're allocating a scarce resource to the 'best' adopters, which is not necessarily the same as saying that fertility treatment is to be denied de facto because of age.

Errr, I'm confused, are we talking about adoption or fertility here?

For adoption, it seems quite clear there are a set of values, it's not a question of resources. For fertility, it may well be different.

Alright - I'm saying that 'older' people should be given their fair share of fertility treatment, just as they're given their fair share of cancer treatment, spectacles, or prosthetic legs. But fair does not mean "none at all".

But deciding what level "fair" is at, that's the tricky bit... The NHS has a rationing system, whether we like it or not, and that means value judgements must be made. Is fertility treatment more important than cancer treatment? If so, by how much?

[El Salsero Gringo]

However, giving them fertility treatment is morally wrong. If it is an 80 year old man married to a 24 year old woman and they conceive naturally, then fair enough - who am I to judge?

Quite - who are you to judge in the one case, yet absolve yourself of responsibility in the second!!??

[El Salsero Gringo]

The distinction is that a man of 80 has had quite a few earlier years, in which he presumably chose not to be a parent - that's the choice part of it. Whereas someone in a wheelchair may not have ever had such a choice.

You are *so* grasping at straws to draw this distinction. The man in the wheelchair also might have had years before becoming wheelchair-bound in which he presumably chose not to be a parent Alternatively, the man of 80 might never until that age have found a partner with whom to build a home in which to bring up children - and so *not* had that choice.

[LMC]

I can, and do deny it at least as far as the flaw your reading of the statistics. The average life expectancy for a man *at birth* in the UK is 76. The average life expectancy for a sixy year old man in good health is much much higher - around 90. If a 60 year old fathers a child by natural or assisted means then he is likely to live until the child is 30. Is that old enough for you?

OK, fair enough - my statistical knowledge was incomplete.

But your statement is possibly also flawed - the 90-year old average life expectancy for 60-year olds is for those in good health - what about for all 60-year olds?

EDIT: the devil obviously does make work for idle hands, I swore to myself I wasn't going to get dragged into this one again

My argument is that intervention in the form of fertility treatment for is wrong for peoole over a certain age. Nature has its own control mechanisms. Too old is too old. I know I keep coming back to that argument, but IMO, that's the way it is. Reproduction is a choice, illness/injury is not.

[David Bailey]

The average life expectancy for a man *at birth* in the UK is 76. The average life expectancy for a sixy year old man in good health is much much higher - around 90.

Yay!

The MSN Money (!) life expectancy calculator says I'll live until 93

And if you can't trust Microsoft, who can you trust?

[El Salsero Gringo]

OK, fair enough - my statistical knowledge was incomplete.

But you statement is possibly also flawed - the 90-year old average life expectancy for 60-year olds is for those in good health - what about for all 60-year olds?

That's precisely the point that I'm making, and that you've been arguing against. Factors that age affects - such as health, and particularly the health of the prospective mother - are perfectly proper criteria for the decision about whether to offer fertility treatment. But age - of and by itself - shouldn't be.

[frodo]

I can, and do deny it at least as far as the flaw your reading of the statistics. The average life expectancy for a man *at birth* in the UK is 76. The average life expectancy for a sixy year old man in good health is much much higher - around 90. If a 60 year old fathers a child by natural or assisted means then he is likely to live until the child is 30. Is that old enough for you?

90 at 60 sounds surprisingly high. Maybe it depends on how good health is defined.

[LMC]

That's precisely the point that I'm making, and that you've been arguing against. Factors that age affects - such as health, and particularly the health of the prospective mother - are perfectly proper criteria for the decision about whether to offer fertility treatment. But age - of and by itself - shouldn't be.

Unfortunately, it is rare that you can separate age from the factors that age affects. DavidY's point about the increase in birth defects with the age of the parents is a case in point.

If it comes down to it (and I'm sure this is where the negative rep will start rolling in ) I have reservations about the provision of unlimited fertility treatment out of public funds "altogether" - whatever the age of the prospective parents. That's a question of limited resources.

[El Salsero Gringo]

90 at 60 sounds surprisingly high. Maybe it depends on how good health is defined.

I just used David's link and put in my own details, excepting that I gave my current age as 60. It said my life expectancy would be 101.

[David Bailey]

That's precisely the point that I'm making, and that you've been arguing against. Factors that age affects - such as health, and particularly the health of the prospective mother - are perfectly proper criteria for the decision about whether to offer fertility treatment. But age - of and by itself - shouldn't be.

There's a line in the classic Sandman collection "Brief lives", where Death says "You got what everyone gets - one life, no more, no less."

Whilst I love that and agree with that principle, the average ( ) 25-year-old has a greater chance of seeing their kids grow up than the average 80-year-old, and presumably that's what influences the government criteria, beaurocrats not being Neil Gaiman fans and all.

[El Salsero Gringo]

Unfortunately, it is rare that you can separate age from the factors that age affects. DavidY's point about the increase in birth defects with the age of the parents is a case in point.

Not at all. Screen prospective parents based on their heath. Just don't apply arbitrary age barriers. Trivially simple, really.

If it comes down to it (and I'm sure this is where the negative rep will start rolling in ) I have reservations about the provision of unlimited fertility treatment out of public funds "altogether" - whatever the age of the prospective parents. That's a question of limited resources.

Public funds are not used to provide unlimited fertility treatment, so you don't have to worry.

[LMC]

... the average ( ) 25-year-old has a greater chance of seeing their kids grow up than the average 80-year-old...

And inevitably, if not scientifically, influences my thoughts too.

[LMC]

Not at all. Screen prospective parents based on their heath. Just don't apply arbitrary age barriers. Trivially simple, really.

Now THAT I could quite happily go along with

[David Bailey]

Not at all. Screen prospective parents based on their heath.

That's a Wuthering Heights thing, yes?

OK, I admit it, I had to make a cheap shot, because it's a very good point, and I don't want this to degenerate into an agreement-fest, where's the fun in that?

[LMC]

That's a Wothering Heights thing, yes?

OK, I admit it, I had to make a cheap shot, because it's a very good point, and I don't want this to degenerate into an agreement-fest, where's the fun in that?

- missed that one

(but it's Wuthering Heights)

EDIT: re: post #58 - hee hee

[David Bailey]

- missed that one

(but it's Wuthering Heights)

Blimey, woman, give me a chance - talk about hair-trigger-response.

[DianaS]

Here's a thought for late on a Saturday early on a Sunday. . .

So looking at the issue from an age perspective when the child is 20 how old will the parents be? How about when the child is 7 how old will the parents be?
[snip]...
I hope you see what I’m trying to get at.

I await your thoughts on this matter. . . .(not on the spear and hut tho)

I had Jason one month before I was 21. He will be 20 himself in November. The upside he had a mum who hopefully will be around until he is old, the downside when I'm 80 he will be sixty and the way he smokes and drinks will be in no fit state to look after me in my old age!

[Minnie M]

I had Jason one month before I was 21. He will be 20 himself in November. The upside he had a mum who hopefully will be around until he is old, the downside when I'm 80 he will be sixty and the way he smokes and drinks will be in no fit state to look after me in my old age!

I had my Jack at 22 similar age to you - don't expect Jason to look after you in your 80's start working on the grandchildren I got mine in my 50's and the training is going well by the time I get my 80s I'll have a couple of hunky 30 something year olds to look after me