I can't give you a bunch of references but my understanding is that there is a lot of research out there supporting this and none that contradicts it, at least in terms of fertility, I don't know as much regarding pregnancy. IVF clinics break down their stats by age for a reason. Here are SIVFs stats:
http://www.sydneyivf.com/pages/success/index.cfm Most clinics give stats slightly differently (ie by clinical pregnancy or by live birth, by transfer or stim cycle) but they all break them down by age and SIVFs stats are probably better than average for older women. If you ask your Fertility Specialist (if you are unfortunate enough to need one) about your specific chances a good clinic can give you stats for your age and diagnosis. Age ALWAYS comes into it. The older you get the greater the chance is that a small problem that might have delayed conception will become a big problem that prevents it. Sometimes women who needed IVF for #1 fall pregnant naturally or more easily the second time around but I seem to hear far more often that #2 turns out to be even harder - the initial problem having been worsened by a couple more years passing. Also to address something from the article that is not really correct here - in Australia the highest risk of multiples is with lower end assisted reproduction such as ovulation induction or IUI, not IVF. In my case for example we abandoned ovulation induction in favour of IVF to prevent multiples. In fact putting back only one embryo at a time you have less chance of twins doing IVF than conceiving naturally (you can still get identical twins, at a slightly higher rate than natural identicals, but you rule out fraternal twins which are far more common). Not really relevant to the age thing but it's an annoying misconception. cheers Jo At 10:04 PM +1200 16/9/05, Safetsleep wrote: >wonder how many studies involved .....i would be interested to see the actual >studies and stats., >miriam > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Jennifairy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]> >Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 9:37 PM >Subject: [ozmidwifery] another fyi... > >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4248244.stm >> >>Delaying babies 'defies nature' >>*Women who wait until their late 30s to have children are defying nature and >>risking heartbreak, leading obstetricians have warned. * >> >>Over the last 20 years pregnancies in women over 35 have risen markedly and >>the average age of mothers has gone up. >> >>Writing in the British Medical Journal, the London-based fertility >>specialists say they are "saddened" by the number of women they see who have >>problems. >> >>They say the best age for pregnancy remains 20 to 35. >> >>Over the last 20 years the average age for a woman to have their first baby >>has risen from 26 to 29. >> >> >>* The message that needs to go out is 'don't leave it too late' * >>Peter Bowen-Simpkins, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists >> >>The specialists, led by Dr Susan Bewley, who treats women with high-risk >>pregnancies at Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, warned age-related fertility >>problems increase after 35 and dramatically after 40. >> >>Other experts said it was right to remind women not to leave it too late. >> >>* 'Having it all' * >> >>In the BMJ, the specialists write: "Paradoxically, the availability of IVF >>may lull women into infertility while they wait for a suitable partner and >>concentrate on their careers and achieving security and a comfortable living >>standard." >> >>But they warn IVF treatment carries no guarantees - with a high failure rate >>and extra risks of multiple pregnancies where it is successful. >> >>For men, there are also risks in waiting until they are older to father >>children as semen counts deteriorate with age, they say. >> >>Once an older woman does become pregnant, she runs a greater risk of >>miscarriage, foetal and chromosomal abnormalities, and pregnancy-related >>diseases. >> >>They add: "Women want to 'have it all' but biology is unchanged. >> >>"Their delays may reflect disincentives to earlier pregnancy or maybe an >>underlying resistance to childbearing as, despite the advantages brought >>about by feminism and equal opportunities legislation, women still bear full >>domestic burdens as well as work and financial responsibilities." >> >> >>* The best time to have a baby is up to 35. It always was, and always will be >>* >>Dr Susan Bewley >> >>Dr Bewley told the BBC News website: "We are saddened because we are dealing >>with people who can't get pregnant or are having complications. >> >>"Most women playing 'Russian Roulette' get away with it, most people are >>fine. But I see the casualties. >> >>"The best time to have a baby is up to 35. It always was, and always will be. >> >>She added: "I don't want to blame women, or make them feel anxious or >>frightened. >> >>"The reasons for these difficulties lie not with women but with a distorted >>an uninformed view from society, employers, and health planners. >> >>"Doctors and healthcare planners need to grasp this threat to public health >>and support women to achieve biologically optimal childbirth. >> >>"Where we can, we should be helping women to have children earlier." >> >> >> >>HAVE YOUR SAY >>*The choice is still clear, have a career or have children late. I would >>advise other women to leave it and take the gamble * >>Victoria Finney, Brighton >> >>Clare Brown, Chief Executive of Infertility Network UK, said "Delaying having >>children until you are in your thirties is a choice many people make but they >>need to be aware of the added problems when trying to conceive, particularly >>over the age of 35 when a woman's natural fertility declines. >> >>"When this is exacerbated by a further complication such as blocked tubes or >>low sperm count the chances of a successful pregnancy even using IVF are much >>less." >> >>Peter Bowen-Simpkins, of the Royal College of Obstetricians and >>Gynaecologists, said: "The biological clock is one thing we cannot reverse or >>change. >> >>"The message that needs to go out is 'don't leave it too late'." >> >>Story from BBC NEWS: >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/4248244.stm >> >>Published: 2005/09/15 23:08:39 GMT >> >> >> >>-- >>No virus found in this outgoing message. >>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >>Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.24/101 - Release Date: 13/09/2005 >> >>-- >>This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. >>Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe. >> > > >-- >This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. >Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe. -- Jo Bourne Virtual Artists Pty Ltd -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.
