How Old is Too Old to Become a Mum?

Posted on

Examiner_OlderMum_final_for-Slider

Putting it in perspective - The Irish Examiner

It seems if you’re not aged between 28-35, someone will have an opinion on your pregnancy. By writing this post, it could well be argued that I’m falling right into that trap myself! But I’m certainly not alone. The rise of the older mum was highlighted in a press release from The Royal College of Midwives (RCM) a few weeks ago, and formed a discussion topic on last Sunday’s The Big Questions (BBC) too. This press release is the latest in a chain of articles from the RCM about pregnancies in older women and appears to have sparked real debate about the implications of having a baby over 40. I must admit that the inner reporter in me couldn’t resist a little late night research - especially as I’m not ruling out having another baby in a few years time.

The latest press release reveals that in 2012 85% more babies were born to mother’s over 40 than the decade previous. Although these figures have been criticised as being over-inflated, we can say with certainty that there has been a rise from 1% to 4% of total babies born here in the UK to women over 40 over the last 30 years (what a mouthful that stat is!). This equates to some 28,000 babies out of the 700,000 born in 2012.

So is this a problem?

Well, yes. In an ideal world of course it wouldn’t be. But having babies in your 40′s carries increased risks of genetic disorders, and is riskier for mum too. Women over 40 are more prone to pregnancy related disorders such as gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia and hypertension and their babies are at increased risk of being delivered pre-term, at lower birth weights, and with chromosomal defects. Of course, the majority of babies will come into the world healthy and happy with their mother’s safe and well - but facts are facts and unfortunately, older women are less biologically cut out for the rigors of pregnancy.

There’s also the heartbreak for women whose eggs are not playing ball. They’ll often have to go through the painstaking (and costly) route of IVF to try and conceive using either their own eggs or donors. As hard as it is to accept, this is the reality of postponing your pregnancy plans.

Tweet4

A secondary concern is, of course, the pressures on midwifery staff and the cost to the NHS. The older woman will require far greater levels of monitoring throughout her pregnancy to ensure that mother and child are healthy. Of course, this shouldn’t inform our decisions on whether or not to have a baby later in life, but it will need tackling if the trend continues. And continue, it just might…

So what is fueling this trend?

Psychologist Oliver James speaking on BBC’s The Big Questions, explained that the issue is twofold. In part, the trend is caused by a wave of new feminism. The typical life road-map of a young woman is very different to that of a young woman in the 50′s and 60′s. Yesterday’s teenager will have been encouraged to find a partner and begin a family much earlier in life - her education will have included ‘how to keep house’ and ‘how to raise children’, a theme that is all but forgotten in modern day education. We enjoy new freedoms in our 20′s, focus on home buying and our careers in our 30′s, then relationships and family in our 40′s.

Tweet6

Many women are also reporting that there is a struggle to find a suitable partner until they are well into their 30′s. James states that our ‘ideal man’ also looks very different in this day and age. Our ‘have it all’ culture has heightened our aspirations and expectations, and we now look for far more when selecting men to share our lives with. We want someone who shares the same level of education (if not better) than ourselves, is hardworking, earning more, and (typically) just a few years older than ourselves. That’s some list!

Tweet2

I found myself nodding in agreement with James’ theories, and they appear to be supported by some of the women I’ve spoken to when researching this piece. It’s just a shame that this cultural shift can’t be replicated by biology.

I had my last baby at 39.5 yrs old and do worry about how old I will be when they get to 18 etc (I had my 1st at almost 37). But if I were a few years younger I would definitely have just one more! I wasn’t fortunate enough to meet my husband before I turned 35 so for me having children with the right partner just wasn’t an option any younger. I say, if you are fit and healthy and willing and able to look after a baby why not have them into your early 40′s! Jo Laybourn (Facebook)

The effect on mum and baby’s wellbeing

Although I’m of the opinion that the disparity between biological and emotional readiness is problematic, I certainly don’t consider 40 too old to start a family. Many older women who become mothers have achieved a greater level of financial and emotional stability, and have no doubt acquired more transferable knowledge and life skills that will make them fantastic mothers. The odds of them raising happy and fulfilled children is therefore stacked in their favour, both with or without their partners.

As I set about researching this post, I spoke to many older mummy’s (both online and offline), and their stories are incredibly positive. In fact, the only striking thing about their accounts is that those who were able to compare their later pregnancy with an earlier one admitted it was much harder the second time around. This might be interesting, but is hardly the harrowing story we might have expected.

I had my first at 19yrs, second at 34, third 37 and another 6 weeks ago at 38… we may have another which will put me over 40 yrs. From my experience pregnancy is much harder with age, it was a breeze at 19, not so at twice the age lol!! I also know a lot more than I did the first time (of course) and that is not always a good thing!! Sitting in antenatal clinic I still felt in the middle of the age group so the age of people having babies is certainly on the rise, also a lot of those older women were pregnant for the first time Katherine Swainston

I have given birth in each of my reproductive decades: teens, 20′s, 30′s and 40′s. Without a doubt being 40 was so much harder. Sleepless nights, the physicality of pregnancy and childbirth and the feeling of isolation from other new mums has been trying! Saying that though, my youngest is blessed with four older siblings who will always be there for him as I get older and more decrepit and he is a breath of fresh air within our family Wendy Macdonald

Perhaps significantly, only one woman (out of the 15 interviewed) found her later pregnancy easier. I’m mindful of the fact that every pregnancy is different and it will depend entirely on a mother’s emotional response to pain, and anxiety surrounding the birth. It does go to show however, that you can achieve your own dream birth plan later in life if you trust in your body… and that body is up to the task!

Much easier on my body - I knew I could do it … so much so that I did it at home. I knew that the more relaxed I was the easier it would be so stayed put - Rowan was born after 72 minutes and two contractions after the midwife arrived. Emotionally it was a much better delivery for me than the one 8 years previously as this time I was on my own and in a much better place. Elaine Colliar

Despite this, having a baby in later life can be fairly isolating and lonely. A few mums at Dexter’s playgroup alluded to the fact that they did feel somewhat adrift from other expectant mother’s in antenatal classes, and this sense of exclusion is echoed later on at the school gates. One mummy stated she felt unsupported immediately after the birth of her child as her friends and family ‘expected’ her to cope due to her age. Nevertheless this seems to be a minority view.

The one response that did make me think however, was a very honest account of a pal who had older parents. Although she speaks very lovingly about her folks, she did have a bittersweet childhood as a result of her older parentage. Her mum was 40 when she was born in 1983 - and by all accounts was treated abhorrently in hospital. She alluded to a constant battle ‘over what was cool’ and found it lonely having no siblings to help her educate her parents. She was bullied as a result making school life particularly dismal, and her father could also barely walk from age 50 so she felt she ‘missed out’ on lots of activities. Finally, now she has a little one of her own, her mother is in her 70′s and cannot offer any real help or support.

Although her story is notably sad, it does appear to be one with extenuating circumstances. Her father’s ill health, and a lack of compassion from her peers has seemingly exacerbated the problem. Many children born to older parents will have older siblings, and fit and healthy (and dare I say it, trendy) parents that will counteract these issues from the offset. Nevertheless it does highlight the need to take parenting seriously in your older years.

So where’s the criticism coming from?

Good news here too. Although, on the same programme, another survey was alluded to that suggested that 70% of women over 50 disapprove of older mums (I should point out that I can’t find the source for this), many of the mums I spoke to reject the idea they are experiencing prejudice from others.

Nevertheless there is the odd horror story out there. Speaking back in March 2013, journalist Jackie Brown didn’t do the older woman any favours and made some brutally honest comments about her style of ‘older parenting’ on This Morning, and a quicky twitter search reveals a few hastily-made and casually-tossed insults at the older woman. Mostly however, the criticism (perhaps even understandably) seems to be leveled at women who would to see IVF made available on the NHS.

Tweet1

The role of the media and celebrity culture: Oh and Tina Malone and the over 50′s club!

Media certainly has had a part to play in the rise of the ‘much’ older parent. Rod Stewart’s fertility appears to know no bounds, and recently Tina Malone has given birth (aged 50) to her daughter, Flame. I can’t help but wade in with my size 6′s here and feel we’re bordering on selfish territory. However I guess parenthood for the rich and famous looks very different to that that the rest of us will experience - many of us won’t have the finances to undergo such intense rounds of IVF, nor the paid help available to ease the burdens of parenting, nor will be able to offer our children the privileges and experiences theirs will have.

Tina Malone’s was a success story not least because of her obvious good health and financial stability. But having said that, the years she spent not paying attention to her health probably put her in a higher risk group despite all the positives. Naturally I wish her the best of luck and found her to be very warm and candid about her journey when speaking on This Morning a few days ago. She looked fantastic and I almost changed my views on over the older 50′s-club as a result. But I just can’t seem to stop coming back to the idea of that big age gap when her child is older. It certainly poses the question - how old is too old to become a mum?

medium_iVDSLAli-gLTPGXphzytr2N8OUOZ_rfOooUFLI-IfXQ

Image: This Morning

So what do we think guys? Would you have a baby in your 40′s, or even your 50′s? Would the risks to your health, or your baby’s make you think twice? Or perhaps you have your own experience to share. Let’s have a good old debate!


Ian Watkins Gets 35 Years. Is that it????

Posted on

Now I’m not the lynch mob type - I’ve written before about how the media should hold back on naming and shaming people prior to sentencing, and I stand by that wholeheartedly. But the guilt of Ian Watkins was never in doubt. This wasn’t one persons word against another, there was exhaustive video and written evidence, and the admissions of some of the people involved. He even admitted some of the charges in court under the (quite frankly) outrageous guise of wanting to spare his victim’s families from hearing evidence.

_71358821_ianwatkins

There is no doubt in anybody’s mind that this man is vile. I don’t care how many psychologists will argue that pedophilia is a mental compulsion, it isn’t, and this wouldn’t excuse Watkins’ behaviour even it it were. Watkins’ brand of child abuse plumped new depths of depravity. This man tried to have penetrative sex with an 11 month baby - several times.

He acted out his fantasies on the truly innocent and vulnerable. Babies who have no voice, no concept of the world around them, and no means of fighting back. Who knows what lasting physical and emotional damage these children will carry with them into adulthood. It’s perverse, morally reprehensible and heinous.

In my eyes, acts of violence or cruelty to children are often more tragic than the murder of an adult. There can be no justification and the story is entirely one-sided - that child hasn’t had enough time to create a back-story worthy of some act of retribution. Ian Watkins, and others like him, act purely out of selfish self-gratification with no care whatsoever for their victims.

When I first read about this case I was physically sick. I didn’t manage to get through the entire article as I felt too appalled. It was simply too much to take in and too graphic. This isn’t because I’m a mother, it’s because I’m a human being. As a true-crime reader, I’ve read some seriously sensational things in my time, but nothing came close to how I felt reading those articles. And these were in our national newspapers for anyone to see.

Today, this man has been sentenced to 29 years behind bars, with a further 6 out on license. But he will be eligible for parole after serving two thirds of the prison term - that’s just 19.5 years. At his time of release he’d be just 56, his victims barely out of their teens. He’ll have plenty more years ahead of him to continue destroying young lives. It certainly makes you wonder just how much worse a case would have to be in order to qualify for a more severe sentence.

Okay, it’s very unlikely he’ll ever walk our streets again - if he doesn’t kill himself when he dries out and the full realisation of his crimes hit home, he’ll be murdered in jail. But this is surely not the point.

The whole case is likely to draw comparisons to that of Baby P’s, whose mother is somehow now out of prison after serving just 4 years. Although his was a child abuse case on a different scale altogether, let us not forget that the Watkins case involves mothers too. Mothers who willingly handed their children over to Watkins to be abused. These women were sentenced to just 14 and 17 years - but I wouldn’t be surprised to hear they’re released after serving far less in just a few years time. Justice Royce also delivered a damning indictment to one of the women during his summing up - that she did not regard her child as a human being. I don’t care how young and impressionable these women were at the time of the crime. They haven’t simply mislaid their moral compasses, they can’t have ever had them to begin with. One of the women even carried out sex acts on her own child over webcam! This doesn’t make her complicit, it makes her AS deplorable as Watkins himself..

Watkins chose to take illegal substances, and these “mothers” chose to favour their idol over their own children, They failed to show even the most simple and natural of instincts when it comes to defenseless children. This points to something seriously worrying and complicated festering in the underbelly of celebrity culture. All those found guilty in this case need intense psychiatric support but should also be behind bars forever more. It is simply incomprehensible to have these people pass us by in ASDA or sit next to us on a bus in several years time.

Sometimes, just sometimes, I think our justice system does not go far enough.


Are the NHS Reforms Really That Bad?

Posted on

David Cameron was never going to get off unscathed after reneging on his manifesto pledge that he’d leave the NHS alone. Instead, his top-down reorganisation has reportedly cost almost £2 billion. The popular press has howled in protest and criticism of the NHS Reforms has been deafening. Not a week has gone by without a horror story being dragged out before the public and splashed across our newspapers and tv screens. Survey after survey has reported that patient care is substandard, waiting times are appalling, morale is low, and money is being frittered away from the NHS coffers as a result of poor hospital management

david_cameron_nhs_poster

This year alone we’ve all read about the Stafford Hospital Scandal, and seen 11 hospital trusts placed in ‘special measures’. Add to this the hundreds of stories proffered by disgruntled members of the public, and it’s fair to say the NHS is having a bleak old time of it.

If we take the view that (historically) the British press has long since been bedfellows with the political elite, their preoccupation with damning the NHS appears to be twofold - either to justify Tory meddling, or to suggest the restructure has thrown the NHS into turmoil. Although both sides have completely different agendas, both appear to have an adverse effect on the public’s perception of the NHS.

A recent survey undertaken by First4Lawyers perfectly illustrates how public confidence in the NHS is failing. Although only a very small snapshot of public opinion, almost 80% of the 500 people polled said they were aware of the issues with several NHS Trusts heavily reported on in the media over the past several months. Almost 30% purported that they know someone who has experienced poor treatment in hospital, and only 43% could say with certainty that they felt they were listened to by doctors. Even more worrying, less than half of those surveyed felt complaints received about doctors/nurses’ poor bedside manner are due to the staff being overworked. Reading between the lines, presumably this means that the other half feels that poor patient care is a result of laziness, poor training and lack of patient empathy. Troubled times for the once heralded institution.

Despite this apparent condemnation of the NHS, interestingly only 45% people of the people surveyed said they would consider suing if they felt they had received inadequate treatment. I find this to be the most revealing statistic of all.

Okay, it could be that people aren’t likely to pursue a claim as they aren’t aware they can - traditionally, as a nation we’re far less inclined to sue for damages here in the UK as they are in the States. Alternatively, perhaps this is because the British public don’t want to kick a man when he’s down and take money from an overstretched and overburdened NHS. This would stem from the misguided belief that a successful pay-out might mean that hospital management are forced to pilfer money otherwise destined to be spent on life-saving equipment for their local A&E, obstetrics or oncology department. In reality, far from being an impoverished institution in crisis, the NHS is actually an organization of beast-like proportions. This year alone the government has put aside some £22.7billion to pay for medical negligence claims. It’s also very highly regarded overseas - just look at Obama’s preoccupation with Obama-Care.

That’s not to say the NHS is a well-oiled machine. I recently waited for 5 hours in a busy A&E department with suspected appendicitis. I also awoke from a D&C following a miscarriage in a room full of newly born babies. Somehow the word ‘mistake’ doesn’t quite cut it - I was naturally really heartbroken at the time. But I’m not dead. I’m alive and am perfectly well. And thankfully so will most of us be after a short stay in hospital.. It’s not a memory any of us will look back on fondly, but hopefully most of us will be able to say that it patched us up efficiently.

Should we be worried about the future NHS? I’d be inclined to say “never”. No government (no matter how self-serving, inexperienced, or maligned) would ever dare to do away with our beloved NHS. In real terms, David Cameron’s meddling is likened to a quick trip to the barbers for a short back and sides, and not a grade 2 all over. Apart from his plans to part-privatise (which will never get through parliament) most of his reforms have been a colossal waste of time and money, but have also uncovered areas of significant weakness within the current structure of the NHS, and some serious failings to boot. Hopefully the result will be a far more streamlined NHS that will serve us for many hundreds of years to come.

As for claiming for medical negligence, of course you should! A few years ago, my dads car was vandalised by a unemployed drunk. He was caught on CCTV, found and prosecuted, and now pays my dad just 20p a week in damages. The moral of the story is that wherever someone is at fault (regardless of their circumstances), they should have to admit liability; It’s a matter of principle. Not only that, but taking £30,000 for a bodged hip replacement doesn’t mean one less midwife for the maternity ward. You are taking from a pre-allocated fund. Plunder away in the knowledge our newly coiffed NHS will carry on. It’s something we should all feel incredibly proud of.

Featured Post

 

 

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...