I shouldn't pass judgement:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/08072006/325/psychiatrist-becomes-mother-62.html
But I'm gonna. Oh dear. I don't really agree with IVF. I'm sure if I ever discover that I'm infertile, I'll feel differently. But then, there's a huge difference in being unable to have children because of your body, and being unable to because of your age. You should probably be settling down in front of Heartbeat at 62, rather than Teletubbies.
While the parents may be affluent and worldly wise, and have so much free time that they can teach Junior to speak Mandarin by the time he's 2, they will also be permanently knackered and probably do their backs in pushing him on the swings. I'm not saying that everybody over 50 should be sent to the scrap yard, but my cousin is 32 with a one year old daugher going through a Damian stage, and she's asleep face down on the coffee table by 8.30 most nights.
It just doesn't seem particularly fair, or even especially ethical. This couple didn't need IVF treatment, they already have a family. Their most active years are definetely behind them, and if they're especially unlucky, Junior will be changing their nappies before he hits twenty. I don't think you should be able to use science like this, just because you want bigger breasts or your stomach hoovered up into a bag, or a baby nature has already decided you really shouldn't be having at your age.
















