IVF Mom Who Lied Isn't The Problem....

Headlines last week about a Spanish mother who at age 69 died leaving behind two, two-year-old twins sparked controversy about the wisdom of providing IVF treatment to women of advanced maternal age. In the case of Maria del Carmen Bousada de Lara, she lied about her age (at the time she was 67) to be able to receive fertility treatments at the Pacific Fertility Center in California.

ppbousada160709.jpgBut what matters about this story now is not Maria's decision to lie on her application or to get a fake ID or any of her other choices, but that now there are two children that will grow up without their biological mother or their biological father and will have a different understanding of family than most children do.

Is this bad? Of course not. The "traditional" notion of family as bound up by biological relationships comprised of a mother and father genetically-related to their child has been abandoned my most for some time.

But the deeper question is: do we want the Maria del Carmen Bousada de Lara cases to become more mainstream with the chance that mothers of advanced maternal age, even if they can give birth to healthy babies, may die before their children grow to adulthood?

For me, the only key requirement for candidacy in these circumstances is that the prospective IVF mothers have a plan in the event that the very worst world happen. Ideally, these mothers would be required to designate a set of "second-string" parents (if you will pardon the sports metaphor) who would be younger than the biological mother be more likely able to care for the child continuously throughout their childhood and adolescence until adulthood.

If there is an extended family, as would be the case in many cultures and situations that would also be caring in large part for the child, all the better--but the primary caregiver would be someone who would be younger than the original mother (but of course chosen by her) who would care for that child until adulthood.

Having more than one adult designated will ensure that in the event that one of these adults could not serve as the parent, the other could. The sole goal of such a system is to ensure that young children are not left without caregivers of the original IVF parent's choosing and that advance planning is done, especially for mothers of advanced maternal age, given the greater likelihood that they may not live to see their child grow to adulthood.

Now, some may argue that all parents (young or old, reproducing naturally or artificially) should have such a plan as any parent could be struck with an unexpected injury or illness at any moment. While this may be true, it is the children born to single mothers, mothers of advanced maternal age, or mothers without extended families or social networks that suffer the most from such tragedy and for whom such advanced planning must be done. For nothing could be worse than having twins left without a mother and no plan for who will care for them.

Giving IVF to mothers of advanced maternal age isn't the problem--giving it without making sure they have a plan in the event of unexpected illness or tragedy is.

Summer Johnson, PhD.

comments

"Older" men father children relatively frequently, yet this discussion only occurs after an "older" mother's death. Are we saying a father is less important than a mother? Frankly, I think it's selfish for "older" people, male or female , to parent a child with the knowledge they will not be there to raise them to adulthood. Losing a parent is a traumatic event, even more so when young. A conscientious parent would not put their child in the position to experience that life-altering event any sooner than necessary, nor would they expect someone else to do the job of raising the child they chose to have in the event of their death. If more people viewed parenthood as a priviledge and not a right, maybe perspectives would change.

contribute a comment

Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.

what is this?

A 'Nature Top 50' science blog by the editors, staff and friends of The American Journal of Bioethics. Science writes: "To follow the latest twists in ... science stories with social impact, dive into this Web log"

The original story behind this blog

What people are saying about blog.bioethics.net

recently on blog.bioethics.net

Is Hope a Culprit in Cancer Clinical Trials?

A recent study conducted by Emory University School of Medicine found that therapeutic misconception is alive and well in Phase I cancer research. According to... (more)

Gingrich on IVF: Bad for Families, Bad for Bioethics

Scientists, reproductive specialists and andrologists had better prepare. If Newt Gingrich has his way (and wins the Presidency), he will have a whole new world... (more)

Canadians have Bieber Fever...For Organ Donation

Yes, it's true. Bieber Fever has spread far and wide. But it isn't just tweens who are following the pop star, Justin Bieber's, every move.... (more)

Caplan: Say No to Sterilization, Forced Abortion

Art Caplan discusses a troubling case regarding a 32-year-old pregnant woman known as "Mary Moe" who is pregnant for the third time and who suffers... (more)

Rallying Around Amelia: A Debate on Disability

The blogosphere and the airwaves are filled with indignation regarding what has happened to Amelia Rivera, a three year old who has a rare genetic... (more)

this blog's feed

  • Subscribe
    • XML
    • Google Reader or Homepage
    • Add to My Yahoo!
    • Subscribe with Bloglines
    • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
    • Add to My AOL
    • Convert RSS to PDF
    • Add to Technorati Favorites!
    • Add to your phone
    • Get RSS Buttons

info

archives

tags