This subject has come under much examination in the past decennary. In this paper I discuss the different statements put frontward by the critics, which include, increased complications to the female parent and kid, the ‘right non to be orphaned ‘ , scarceness of resources and who should hold precedence, every bit good as the societal concern such as postmenopausal female parents being unnatural and being thought of as ‘inappropriate female parents ‘ . Reviewing and analyzing these statements I feel that the is no ground to deny entree to postmenopausal female parents, every bit long as they have been screened and have been found to be healthy, they are funding the intervention themselves and they have thourally weighed up both the hazards and the benefits of the intervention. Sing the societal facets of the statement, I feel that they are strictly baseless and that societies attitudes to this subject should germinate merely as the engineering and scientific discipline has done.
The mean age of a adult female traveling through the climacteric in the UK is 52 old ages ( NHS, 2009 ) . However the NHS merely financess adult females up to 39 to hold IVF intervention ( HFEA, 2009 ) , private clinics have no age limitations but typically merely dainty adult females up to 50 ( Bown- Simpkins, 2009 ) . Modern biotechnology such as egg contribution can let adult females over 50 who have gone through the climacteric to go pregnant and give birth to healthy babes. In this essay I will discourse the concerns of the critics of this process and set frontward my position on why postmenopausal adult females should be allowed entree to IVF.
One of the major statements put frontward against IVF intervention in postmenopausal adult females Centres on the belief that it is unethical to supply intervention to these adult females, due to increased hazard of complications to both female parent and the babe. Doctors cardinal dogma is ‘first of all do no injury ‘ , hence if utilizing IVF in postmenopausal female parents leads to morbidity or put on the line the life of the female parent or the kid so it is unethical to let them to hold this intervention. However, if this is the exclusive ground for declining IVF to this sector of adult females so physicians should besides decline birthrate intervention to adult females who have medical upsets such as cardiac disease or malignant neoplastic disease who are besides at increased hazard of complications ( Bewley, 1995 ) .
Retrospective surveies that have suggested important additions in the hazard of complications in adult females over a certain age, when compared to their younger opposite numbers ( Lehmann & A ; Chism, 1987 ) are non changeless at looking at pre- bing medical conditions, antenatal showing and the wellness attention they received throughout their gestations ( Paulson, et Al. 2002 ) . Thus their dependability can be called into inquiry.
Paulson et Al. ( 2002 ) found that healthy adult females in their 50 ‘s can anticipate a successful gestation and bringing providing they have modern obstetric observation and monitoring and are carefully screened. He did note, nevertheless, an addition of pregnancy-associated high blood pressure and gestational diabetes in postmenopausal adult females, and an addition in c-section bringings. This alone is non a sufficient medical ground to exclude all adult females aged 50-60 old ages from entree to IVF. These hazards of complication are highly low when compared to the strength of the desire these adult females have to be female parents ( Lockwood, 2009 ) .
IVF like other medical interventions in which older members of society have limited entree to, due to ageist favoritism. The concluding determination should be down to the person, every bit long as they have evaluated both the hazards and the possible benefits, so a physician should non be restricted from offering the intervention ( Paulson & A ; Sauer, 1994 B ) .
Whilst there is a hazard of increased complication to postmenopausal adult females, this is minimum if the adult female screened and found to be in good wellness. There is no sound medical ground why these adult females should be denied entree to IVF. It is an abuse to the adult females who want this process to presume that they have n’t weighed up the hazards and benefits for themselves. Therefore every bit long as a adult female in her 50 ‘s is healthy and has weighed up the hazards against the benefits I can see no ground why postmenopausal adult females can be denied entree to IVF on these evidences.
Right non to be orphaned
The 2nd major statement voiced by critics is that station menopausal adult females will stop up dyeing at an earlier age in their child life, than those with younger parents ( Park, 1999 ) . The mean life anticipation has increased radically. A century ago, when the mean life anticipation was 40 to 50 old ages, ( Antinori et al. 1993 ) cipher objected to adult females holding kids in their late 20 ‘s. Given that mean life anticipation has increased to 70 to 80 old ages, a healthy adult female in her 50 ‘s allows plentifulness of clip to rise up a kid to maturity ( Paulson & A ; Sauer, 1994a )
The right non to be orphaned is non an statement that is used against the generative rights of younger adult females who have reduced length of service because of medical conditions such as malignant neoplastic disease or chronic nephritic failure, which may merely go forth them 5 – 10 old ages to populate, they are non prohibited from holding kids and are allowed to gestate without disapproval ( Edwards, 1993 ) ( Paulson & A ; Sauer, 1994a ) . Besides adult females with familial upsets which compromise quality of life and or life anticipation may choose for oocyte contribution to seek to forestall the upset being passed to their progeny. Clinics feel that such single are suited campaigners for this type of IVF intervention ( Paulson & A ; Sauer, 1994a ) .
I can non challenge that station menopausal female parents are more likely to decease sooner than their younger opposite numbers, but is it non better holding an affectionate relationship with a parent or child even if merely for a few old ages, so none at all ( Edwards, 1993 ) . Besides for this statement to stand, Hope et Al. ( 1995 ) points out that ‘to set this forward you would hold to claim that it is better to ne’er hold of all time existed than for one ‘s female parent to decease when 1 is still immature. ‘ Besides even if kids have younger parents there is no warrant that they may populate to raise them to adulthood, as fortunes may step in.
Therefore I feel that the right non to be orphaned to non a strong plenty statement to halt postmenopausal adult females from having IVF. There are countless factors which could do a parent ‘s early decease ( comparative to high modern life anticipations ) which are non used to forestall other adult females having IVF intervention.
Scarcity of resources and who should hold precedence to these resources
Postmenopausal adult females, find oocyte contribution the lone scheme available for a successful gestation. Due to the limited figure of oocytes and the disbursal of the intervention, it has been argued that utilizing this type of IVF in postmenopausal adult females is a ‘misuse of medical engineering ‘ and they ought non to hold entree to it. Alternatively, younger adult females, who can potentially see higher rates of success utilizing the intervention and should, it is argued, have precedence ( Baird, 1996 ) ( Paulson & A ; Sauer, 1994a ) ( Park, 1999 ) . The position is held that older adult females should hold conceived at an earlier age, hence already holding their opportunity to be female parents already, it may besides be viewed as selfish that older adult females have chosen their callings over holding kids and should non hold the right to IVF as it is excessively late to ‘change their heads ‘ ( Park, 1999 ) .
Contrary to this position, success rates are found to be similar in both immature and old adult females who receive oocyte donation.The womb of a postmenopausal adult female is found, non merely to be receptive to nidation, but besides capable of back uping the gestation to term ( Paulson et al. 2002 ) . The success rate is related to the age of the oocyte ( Peterson, 2005 ) , non that of the receiver, the ‘success rate ‘ statement does non stand examination.
IVF intervention is really expensive and therefore is a scarce resource within the NHS. Therefore, in England, the cut off point for funding IVF is 39, after which it is argued that intervention is less effectual. However, if adult females are paying for this type of intervention themselves in the private clinics, so there can be no expostulations towards them on economic evidences ( Bewley, 1995 ) .
Furthermore, denying oocyte contribution to postmenopausal adult females violates their ‘Procreative autonomy ‘ ( Peterson, 2005 ) as this is the lone method that will enable them to reproduce. The position held by our society is of protecting the rights to privateness of the person and personal pick when it comes to reproduction, restricting oocyte contribution strictly on baseless ageist beliefs is an unforgiveable breach of these rights ( Paulson & A ; Sauer, 1994a ) .
The place of some critics, that postmenopausal adult females have ‘had their opportunity ‘ , assumes that if postmenopausal adult females had wanted kids, they could hold had them at an earlier age. In fact, fortunes may hold dictated that these adult females should non or could non hold had kids in their generative old ages. Reasons such as deficiency of equal chance in their work sector, which may hold left them no clip to hold kids, as holding kids at this clip in their life may hold jeopardised their calling ( Park, 1999 ) . They may hold besides held off waiting for a suited relationship, or they may be seeking oocyte contribution due to decease of a kid, remarriage, the feeling that their household is uncomplete, and ( non uncommonly ) primary sterility. For the bulk of these people, it is their first chance to profit from this progress in generative engineerings ( Paulson & A ; Sauer, 1994b ) ( Lockwood, 2009 ) .
With respect to scarce resources and who should take precedence, I feel that while older adult females should be considered for intervention, younger adult females should be given precedence to entree the support for these scarce resources. It is, nevertheless, really improbable that the IVF services will go afloat with adult females in their 50 ‘s seeking IVF intervention. Equally long as the older adult females fund the intervention themselves I can see no statement to their holding entree to it. Besides farther scientific progresss such as being able to cryopreserve a adult females ain eggs, hence the scarceness of resource statement would non stand ( Edwards, 1993 ) ( Park, 1999 ) .
Social concerns unnatural
Many find gestation in postmenopausal adult females ‘unnatural ‘ , reasoning that Nature ‘s bound is at the climacteric. However it is merely a physiological restraint that can be bypassed, in the same manner as issues with other variety meats are ( Edwards, 1993 ) .
Denying IVF to post-menopausal adult females, on the evidences that it is natural for them to be sterile, is similar to denying contraceptive method to immature adult females because they should be fertile ( Park, 1999 ) . It is non merely medically, but besides socially acceptable for younger adult females to take preventives, nevertheless it is still considered socially unacceptable for postmenopausal adult females to take steps to let them to go female parents ( Peterson, 2005 ) . As Singer puts it- ‘if the descriptive value of what is nature is employed, so all of medical specialty goes against nature ‘ . If looking into this statement from the technological position ( ‘human nature involves human capablenesss ‘ ) so gestation in postmenopausal adult females is natural because it is a consequence of bing human capablenesss ( Peterson, 2005 ) .
Besides if a individual ‘s chief expostulation to the usage of IVF in postmenopausal adult females is because it is ‘unnatural ‘ so this statement could be aimed towards immature adult females with any status that causes sterility, for whom IVF was developed ( Paulson & A ; Sauer 1994b ) .
In decision I do non experience that the sentiment that postmenopausal maternity is ‘unnatural ‘ can truly be sustained as an statement, it is the consequence of progresss in scientific cognition and engineering. If younger adult females can be made sterile by preventives and younger adult females who are ‘naturally ‘ infertile can be made fertile, so I can non hold that postmenopausal adult females should be treated otherwise.
Inappropriate female parents
Critics argue that kids right ‘s to a ‘normal ‘ childhood are prevented by holding postmenopausal female parents ( Park, 1999 ) . The Lancet deemed older adult females ‘worthy of breeder position without intrusting them with the moral duty for raising kids ‘ . Suggest that non merely are adult females over a certain age excessively old to parent, but they are besides someway morally lacking parents ( Park, 1999 ) . The IVF clinic besides have a duty for the public assistance of the possible kid and can decline intervention on these evidences ( HFEA ) . Bown-Simpkins ( 2009 ) raises the issue that the age of the female parent can be an of import factor in a kid ‘s public assistance.
I contend that the statements put frontward above are based strictly on guess ( Paulson & A ; Sauer, 1994a ) . Some grounds has even suggested that kids receive a better quality of rearing when they are born into unusual state of affairss ( Lockwood, 2009 ) . It besides seems extremely improbable that holding older parents will upset the kid so much that they would hold preferred non to hold existed than to endure this embarrassment ( Paulson & A ; Sauer, 1994a ) .
To propose, as it has been supra, that older female parents are morally unsuitable for rearing is an abuse to older adult females who play a function in the raising of their grandchildren as found in many civilizations and in some instances are the defender for their grandchildren, in state of affairss where, for illustration, their parents have died or their parents are adjudged incapable of rearing ( Peterson, 2005 ) . No grounds has been found to propose that kids raised by their grandparents are at any disadvantages ( Paulson & A ; Sauer, 1994a ) .
Older parents can supply many advantages to kids. As non merely have they had clip to do and see their determinations. They are more likely to be financially unafraid, hold more clip to pass with their kids, in general be better educated and more experient. They are besides more likely to be committed to parenthood ( Edwards, 1993 ) ( Paulson & A ; Sauer, 1994a ) .
That older adult females make inappropriate female parents is a position held by our societal norms of reproduction. This position is derived from the embedded cultural construct of the ‘institution of maternity ‘ ( Park, 1999 ) . As it is normal for a postmenopausal adult female to be sterile, a postmenopausal adult female who is fertile contradicts our societal and medical norms. However, as societal norms evolve over clip, it is non truly a solid ground for denying these adult females entree to IVF as societal norms are invariably altering ( Park, 1999 ) . IVF has increased the scope of generative options and contested traditional norms of gestation, childbearing and maternity ( Peterson, 2005 ) . Social perceptual experiences are non based on biological cognition, instead they rely strictly on the ageist premise ( Park, 1999 ) . The past decennary has already seen a displacement in the demographics of adult females holding kids. In the US between 1999-2001 saw the figure of first births per 1000 in adult females age 40-44 addition by a monolithic 70 % and in 2002 entirely 262 births were to adult females aged 50-54 old ages ( Heffner, 2004 ) . This merely shows how the positions of maternity have changed and are likely to alter farther.
Work force in their 50 ‘s or older going male parents, which is a regular happening, is non considered an issue, here are no social tabu or criticisms towards work forces. A survey in US IVF clinics found that, although age bounds for adult females were set, there were no comparable age bounds for work forces. This shows that society is merely concerned with the life anticipation of the female parent, which demonstrates the sexist manner in which parenting is viewed in our society and the socially constructed position of maternity. Which is a position that should no longer be upheld in our supposedly classless society ( Peterson, 2005 ) ( Paulson & A ; Sauer, 1994a ) .
Postmenopausal adult females who seek IVF are besides strictly screened, non merely for physical wellness as mentioned above, but besides for psychological and societal stableness, to happen out the motive for holding kids in the latter phases of life ( Paulson & A ; Sauer, 1994a ) ( Lockwood, 2009 ) .
Therefore proposing that postmenopausal adult females are inappropriate female parents is non merely an uncorroborated statement and insulting to the population of grandmas who care for there kids, but it is besides a sexist position of rearing. Society positions on this subject are ageist and unjust. As kids who are born to older parents more frequently have extra benefits that younger parents are unable to supply to their kids. They are besides screened more smartly than 99 % of the population to do certain they are suited parents beforehand.
In decision, I feel that every bit long as the postmenopausal adult female is healthy and has weighed up the risked and benefits of holding a babe and is non under the semblance she is in for an easy drive. Besides if she is funding the intervention to me there appears no ground why she should non be allowed entree to IVF. I do n’t experience that the right to be orphaned or postmenopausal adult females as inappropriate female parents as statements against entree hold any force.
Prior to researching this subject I had felt that station menopausal adult females should non have entree to IVF, that adult females holding babes in their 50 and 60 was ‘unnatural ‘ and socially inappropriate. However reading through some of the huge literature on this subject has made me reconsider my place, why should adult females in their 50 and 60 ‘s who have gone through the climacteric non be allowed to hold kids? Technology has evolved to enable adult females to hold babes in the latter phases of life and I feel that society ‘s perceptual experience of generative engineering for adult females over a certain age, has so far lagged buttocks.