Re: [ozmidwifery] another fyi...
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]; ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au 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.
Re: [ozmidwifery] another fyi...
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]; ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au 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
RE: [ozmidwifery] another fyi...
Thanks for the conference update! Fantastic that the against team won! At 10:21 PM + 16/9/05, wump fish wrote: If we stop defying nature we would be having babies from our teens until our menopause. Drs would be out of a job because we would not be meddling in nature (illness and death) with medicine and operations. Women make reproductive choices based on their own individual circumstances. They can't win. If they have a baby at the physically 'best' time they are irresponsible teen mothers. If they wait until they have a reliable partner and the means to comfortably support their family they are selfish and 'want it all'. Maybe we should stop judging and focus on creating a society which supports all kinds of parenthood. We had our babies young and spent their childhood struggling to make ends meet, study and get careers. It would have been much easier to wait until I was past my sell by date. Rachel ps. the Wesley Conference re. c-section the way of the future, was fantastic. Very interesting and inspiring. In a nutshell - First speaker talked about 'fetal surveilance' and I phased out after he got excited about the concept of taking the fetus out of the womb to 'examine' it. He had clearly forgotten that babies grow inside women. Second speaker = labour is generally better for baby as opposed to an elective c-section. Third speaker = the state of your pelvic floor has very little to do with birth (genetics, weight and lifestyle). Fourth speaker = Denis Walsh fighting the corner for midwifery led care. The debate was very entertaining and the 'against' team won, ie. c-section is not the way of the future. Dr David Molloy was on the 'for' team - what a horrible little man. From: Jennifairy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Subject: [ozmidwifery] another fyi... Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:07:00 +0930 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
RE: [ozmidwifery] another fyi...
Not surprising who was on the 'for' team...not sure that particular person would even know where the vagina is...! Jo -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.21/96 - Release Date: 9/10/2005 -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit http://www.acegraphics.com.au to subscribe or unsubscribe.
