AIBU to think this is bonkers?

I personally could not do it, but live and let live and judge ye not.

Oh and don't even think about having an opinion?

If once a piece of medical technology becomes mainstream and acceptable, I am very dubious about judgement of the nature or personality (not health issues) of the person seeking it becoming an issue. Is it right for a single mother, lesbian, someone with a disability or someone with mental health issues to have IVF, for example. However, I instinctively feel that someone who has already borne a large number of children and is about 15 years past the menopause is really not a suitable candidate. As I understand – and those of you with daughters who have happily benefited from IVF will correct me if I am completely wrong – the medical profession recommends not trying to go to term with quads if all implanted embryos are currently viable. I cannot help wondering what this woman's motives are. Does she just want more and more babies? There is a recognition among psychiatrists that some women just want babies and tend to lose interest once they become children, although this seems to be more prevalent among very young mothers. Does she want to go down in the record books?

I am just approaching my sixty-fifth birthday and find it very hard even to approach understanding of this woman.

There could be any number of reasons.
She might want to feel continually needed and relied on for example.
She has had a career, which is unusual.
Perhaps she just likes being pregnant. Or likes feeling like superwoman.

Some people still don't accept IVF because it isn't "natural". Some people don't accept vaccinations against horrible diseases because it isn't "natural".

I don't understand/can't imagine this woman's motives either, and they do seem to me a bit "unnatural", but I don't feel my understanding of other people's motives is really necessary if they are not doing any harm. I feel confident that she is not doing this in order to cause harm and harm may not come of it even though the odds would appear to be stacked against her and the babies. So why should I object? Saying "you can't do this because I don't like it, don't understand it/you, wouldn't do it myself, think you're bonkers for wanting to do it" is really rather puritanical in my view.

jess's objections based on a possible overuse of limited medical resources are most reasonable I've read on this thread, but even they are not cast in stone. People with various medical conditions are always pushing at the limits of medical provision and knowledge. We don't usually blame them for it. The only difference here is that this woman has chosen to be in the position she's in; I guess most people don't choose to be ill but quite a lot of medical conditions are brought on by bad life choices (e.g. smoking) that people have made, against advice.

BTW, that last thing, about smoking, was simply a statement of fact, not a judgement. I know some people think smokers should pay for their hospital care when they need it. I don't agree with that view even though I don't understand the motives of people who take up smoking and I think they're bonkers to do it.

My dad died of lung cancer far too young. He thought smoking was bonkers too but he couldn't overcome the addiction and there weren't all the quit smoking aids there are now.

There have to be society limits to things.
Else I could camp on your front lawn for instance.

As regards smoking. It is in essence an addiction. People shouldnt have to pay if they have become addicted to something.

Do you mean laws, soontobe? Also, if, as you imply, addiction is a medical condition, then where do you draw the line in defining addiction? I think particularly of those who, it is said, are addicted to food, or alcohol, never mind drugs. Interesting...

Sorry to digress, although it does tie in with bags comment about "people with various conditions pushing the limits of medical provision and knowledge".

I cannot imagine being pregnant not, let alone having thirteen children etc. etc. And I cannot understand why any sane woman would want to be in that situation.

She'll probably get the older ones to look after the little'uns.
I should think she'll have to spend the last months in hospital.
I wonder if she has a husband?

Apparently she is single. As she's already 21 weeks pregnant, I'd imagine she'll only have another 10-12 weeks to go (31 weeks is usual for quads, I've read).

I presume she'll be paid for the documentary she's doing for German tv, which should pay for a nanny for a while!

soutra I do have an opinion and gave it. Live and let live and judge ye not is my opinion

PS soutra where is you opinion, don't you have one,

<shrug>

The woman's mad (I mean the pregnant one). Medically, how could it happen? I do know how it could happen physically - there are no flies on me - but surely her body is not up to it at that age? Is it?

Can you imagine being 75 and having 10-year-old quads charging around? No - neither can I and I'm only 7 months away from that advanced age!

Part of the treatment is they get pumped full of hormones, which can be dangerous.
We know someone who had a girl at age 55 and boy at 57 and heard some of the story.

So, TriciaF, both the woman and the medics could be said to be acting irresponsibly, making a foray into the unknown with four little lives at risk.

The mind boggles.

It doesn't matter what we can't imagine. We are not doing what she is doing.

Well it does really. Because who knows who is reading this site. There could be medics on our midst for example, or grandparents on this site could be talking with their young grandchildren who will be medics.
In short, it is an exchange of views and opinions. So if we come up with say reasons and a whole lot of other stuff, we have no way of knowing what is being taken on board, which may change the path of something later on.

True. What I said was not an attempt to stop people saying they couldn't imagine, etc. It's just that, in my opinion, it doesn't matter if we can't imagine her thought porcesses or motives for doing what she's doing, it doesn't make any difference as she's already doing it. So my comment was a response to someone else's (several someones) comment. Nothing more.

Oh I see. Fair enough.

As far as medical ethics are concerned, most of these "miracle births" result from treatment in private clinics, and cost a fortune. Maybe the couple or woman has had some treatment under the NHS but this is limited, so if no success they go on to pay, if they have the money.
As you know there's ongoing research on this and things are still experimental so both parties must know there's a risk. I wouldn't be surprised if they have to sign a disclaimer.

I thought there was a general agreement among IVF professionals to limit the number of babies conceived this way to two at a time. I don't know whether these were implanted from donors or conceived internally after the hormone treatment bumped up her own egg production, but if a consultant implanted four or more, he is not acting as he should.

Four babies at that age could be more than her body can deal with.

Sometimes only one is implanted but they continue to split up in the womb - not sure about the biological process involved. I get other info. from a relative who has had some treatment, so second hand I'm no expert.
It's an interesting subject, if you Google births after 50 you can find lists, several being natural conceptions due to a late menopause.