Health -
News Sections
60-year-old Calgary woman gives birth to twins
CTV News Video
Watch: See all Videos in the Player
Font-size: 
Share 
Print
Comments(63)
CTV.ca News Staff
Date: Thu. Feb. 5 2009 9:45 PM ET
A 60-year-old woman who reportedly received in vitro fertilization (IVF) in India has given birth to twins in a Calgary hospital, igniting a prickly ethical over fertility treatments for women older than 50.
The mother, Ranjit Hayer, delivered her two boys seven weeks premature by caesarean section at Calgary's Foothills Hospital on Tuesday, according to a Calgary Health Region spokesperson.
Hayer is recovering in intensive care and the twins are also in neo-natal intensive care. All three are expected to remain there for several days.
Hayer had tried to conceive children for several years, but she suffered several miscarriages, according to CTV Calgary.
When her age precluded her from receiving in vitro fertilization treatment in Canada, Hayer flew to India and was impregnated with donated eggs, CTV Calgary reported.
After her treatments in India, Hayer conceived triplets, but one of the embryos had to be terminated for medial reasons, the television station said.
But in Canada, fertility clinics generally refuse to treat women over the age of 50, and the births have stirred up a contentious debate about age, motherhood and fertility.
According to Cal Greene, the director of the fertility program at Calgary's Foothills Hospital, giving IVF to women in their 60s and 70s is unethical.
But he added: "I don't want to tar and feather all of the fertility clinics in India because of the bad actions of a few."
Meanwhile, University of Toronto bio-ethicist Kerry Bowman said that clinics in India pursue a "free market" approach when deciding to treat patients over the age of 50.
Although it's difficult to set an age when child-bearing becomes unacceptable, giving birth at 60 is very much "outside of our comfort zone" in Canada, said Bowman.
He added that it's plausible that a 50-year-old woman can conceive a child naturally, meaning the medical community should adopt a case-by-case approach to IVF rather than establishing a set-in-stone cut-off age.
"I think we need public debate about what the parameters are," Bowman said.
The Calgary births come only days after a woman in California had octuplets after receiving fertility treatments.
The mother, who lives at her parent's home, now has 14 children and her treatments have led to an international debate about a woman's right to bear children.
Last August, a 61-year-old Japanese woman gave birth to her own grandchild, using an egg donated by her daughter.
A month before that, a 77-year-old woman was reported to have given birth to twins in India.
With files from CTV Calgary
User Tools
Share with your social Network:
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Stories
User Tools
About the tools
Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.
-
Font-size - Print Article
- Comments(63)
-
Feedback
Share it with your network of friends
Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.
Share this article with Facebook
Share this article with Digg
Share this article with Newsvine
Share this article with delicious
Share this article.
Send Email
Share this article with Twitter
Share this article with StumbleUpon
Share this article with Reddit
Share this article with Yahoo! Buzz
Most Viewed News Stories
Most Talked about Stories
I applaud the budget, even though Health Care and education may stay unscathed. Sadly this cannot last and I worry to later this year where cuts will become enviable. If anything, this provides the Wildrose Alliance plenty of ammo when an election is called.
Comments are now closed for this story
Ticking clock in Cambridge
said
kc in alberta
said
It is one thing to assist an appropriatley aged woman to conceive and another to completely disregard the age of the potential mother.
Assisting older mothers is fine as long as they are pre-menopausal.
Menopause is nature's cutoff for being physically capable of healthy conception and should be respected.
Since the mother and babies ended up in severe distress, it obviously isn't healthy to fool nature when it comes to rendering a post-menopausal woman temporarily
able to conceive.
This is the kind of problem that arises when the only criteria for treatment is the patient's ability to pay.
kate
said
One of my parents was her age when I was born. I can't tell you what it was like having a parent as old as your grandparents who never had energy to do anything with me. I had to behave like a small adult in order not to disturb his naps and annoy him due to his age. Then he got sick and died by the time I was 12 - up to that time, I was more a co parent with my mom to him than vice versa. After that we were left in financial dire straits and believe me I grew up fast. I don't care how many family members there are for back up support, nothing replaces a parent - it's a hole I still feel to this day at almost 50.
Kim
said
I think something has to be done with these doctors who are playing with nature. Eight eggs implanted in a woman is not natural. A 60 year old woman giving birth isn't natural.
Jason
said
Praising God
said
Fred - Brandon MB
said
Congrad to new mother, and good luck!
said
Becoming a parent at 30 is fantastic but at 60 it might be more like a nightmare!
Kids these day don't leave the house until they're 30 that would make the mother 90! Outch
I guess being a grandmother will be stretching it!
I'm 55 and I would never hope to have a child at this time, i'm thinking retirement!
Oh well good luck to the new parent and try to enjoy the moment!
Sahib Reginawale
said
Trent
said
In a time when we move to ban and regulate everything, we need to add this to the list. One child per parent only.
SVCR
said
The system? I would hope not!
Not really breaking news, if you have all the working parts and in good health!
brenda
said
korie in creston, mom at 24.
said
Chit
said
marge
said
Sahib Reginawale
said
In Canada we need much more than one kid per couple otherwise we are DOOMED!
Barry
said
Matt
said
While I agree some older ones may have the energy at 60 to be a grand parrent and spoil children as they do for a few days here and there... but for heavens sake, give serious thought to the kids and the kind of life they will miss out on. Will this elderly lady selfishly get old and ask for quiet and administration of medications, change of diapers for incontience, a stroll in the park in her wheel chair, Will she die of old age before the children have the pleasure of sharring grandchildren with her?
How thoughtless, inconsiderate and selfish for this woman to play with nature and bring these children into a world just in time to watch thier mother grow old and die !!!!
Where are the brains of our health care system if in fact they endorsed this proceedure or financed it ? Where are the morals of the dr that performed this proceedure ?
Ask any child if it would be thier choice to be born to a retiree just in time to watch them grow old and have to start being a caretaker of thier mother and then rest her in a grave before having a chance to even be a child.
Matt
Ontario Canada
Ray - Ottawa
said
Who should decide this persons happiness?
Folks, how about we all just live and let live. We should welcome the fact that for some it's not all about the money.
island girl
said
One can't anticipate an unexpected financial reversal, but to have twins knowing your earnings will be facing severe decline is irresponsible. I hope they can afford nannies, have lots of life insurance and a trust fund for education just to put these kids on an even plain with other kids that have at least one working parent of child bearing age.
James in Red Deer
said
Debra
said
You are right; older people can be loving parents, but you are missing the point. This mother had fertility treatments in India; this is not natural.
Gerald from Belleville
said
Around that age, the risk of death or serious disability increases exponentially. There is a VERY high likelihood (based on current life expectancy) that these children will lose their mother before adulthood. She is acting like a selfish child and thinking only about herself. If she goes senile in the next 10 years...does she expect her 10 year olds to take care of her?
Brian
said
Hey Barry...
Abraham and Sarah had a life span of severl hundred yrs. At least they were around to watch thise children grow up :-)
Dumb choice
said
Chit
said
Ruta Muhlberger, Bonfield Ont.
said
Appleby Mennym
said
I recall taking my younger boy to church on Easter Sunday and having a young woman with an unkempt sniveling child look at my six year old Steven -- neatly dressed in white pants and a blue blazer, white shirt and tie, and asking "How did you get him to wear that?" I told her the truth: "I laid it out on his bed and said PUT THAT ON." Today my oldest is a successful businessman who is well on the way to paying off his new house in 8 years while saving to pay cash for a new car, and the younger boy is on full scholarship to Georgia Tech while holding down a full time job where he has already redesigned their power system and saved them a fortune. So you can save your breath to cool your porridge.
Becky of Calgary
said
I'm 14 years older and can barely move.Why!
DO
said
Jackie from Toronto
said
kelly
said
and she tryed again shes 43 she had a lil boy im pround of her lol and my dad is 50
Catina
said
It's not about age, it's about raising respectful responsible people.
Leah
said
Jeff
said
shelley in alta
said
Don't think that I think she's too old to be a good parent.. I think she's too old to opt in to be a parent. There is a huge difference between a woman having children at 40 and a women having children at 60.. Plainly, I'm curious to see where the children end up when she is put in a home while they are in Jr High.. Nice!!
PROUD OLDER MOM
said
Lily from Brantford
said
Nana B
said
How she raises her children and what family support she has we don't know.
At over 50 I run after my Grandchildren as much or more than I did with my own four Children and don't feel old doing it. After all age is just a number its how you feel and how you look after yourself that counts.
I do agree that growing up with older parents is a lot different than growing up with younger parents but it is the loving and caring for them that is important.
However saying that only 1 child per family is what this country needs is way out of line --- we need more Canadians to be born or else the Canadians will be the minority in our population in the near future -- give your head a shake. Look back a generation or two and see the sizes and closeness of the families that were around then 8 or more children per family and they made it.
God bless the mother and children and we all know God has a plan for each and every one of us and maybe this was his plan for this family. He doesn't give us more than we can handle and if we feel we are getting at the end of our grip all we need to do is ask for his help.
Punkie
said
What makes a 60-year-old woman less eligible for parenthood when 15-year-olds are able and allowed to breed?
Why should it be up to other people whether you may have children or not. It's no one else's business. The health care industry can support this one woman if we can support millions of smokers.
Jaydee in Calgary
said
In addition, for those who think that money and comforts translate in well raised, adjusted, happy adults, remember that sometimes money and comforts are not enough. We have had in history, serial killers who were born in comfortable lifestyles, educated and succesfully/gainfully employed, until their murderous way could not be balanced with an apparent clean/succesful/adjusted life.
But to most of us, to bear a child after artificial insemination at the age of 60, is unnatural, selfish, and difficult to look at with positive and hopeful eyes.
I do think that there should be some social accountability. To choose to bear a child at that age, does not take much into consideration the society this woman lives in, and the burden that her decision will bring to the rest of us if she is unable or unwilling to take care of her children in the future.
Obviously her first lesson to her children is: "Life's purpose #1: Get what you want, when you want, no matter what!" and let others to accommodate to your whims.
ME
said
Only one child was tried in China with disasterous results. What should be banned is having a child after the age of natural concepyion. In other words after menopause.
Women who have this done at an unreasonable age are thinking only of themselves not their children.
At 30 or even 40 you are likely to have the energy to cope with growing children, and see them into adulthood. I'm 68 and after a full day with my grandchildren, though I thoroughly enjoy it, I'm beat and ready to send them back to their parents. I can't imagine doing it every day. She will be 80 by the time they are 20. What kind of life is that for a child.
Michelle
said
Astonished
said
Angie
said
Anonymous
said
beverly - lethbridge
said
When it happened the second time, they and their doctors were astounded.
Those babies are now in their late teens, thriving from having the gift of parents who truely appreciated the unexpected family that came their way.
Age is not the defining factor in who should bear children. Committment, resolve and LOVE should be the defining factors.
I don't mind my "welfare" tax dollars supporting a child who lives in a home filled with love - even if the parents are not financially stable.
What I mind is people who have children and then spend no time with them, nor teach them values and limitations necessary to raise happy productives adults.
cath
said
Worried Citizen
said
Although not directly related to this case, you touch on a very important issue.
The world is NOT over-populated. Just Google “world not overpopulated.” In fact the world birth rate is declining.
In order for sustainability of mankind a global fertility birth rate of 2.1 children for every woman on earth is required. As chit mentions, Canada is well below that. Nana B brings up the most important point. Demographics are shaping and will continue to shape the future of Canada. Unless we want to live under Sharia law, Canadians (not 60 year olds) have to reproduce more, because the Muslims are the only group globally that are reproducing at a number (far) greater than 2.1. As Nana says, we will soon become the minority and it’s the majority who make the laws. Sharia anyone?
This is a serious problem. Its evidence is now obvious in the unrest and social chaos in Europe and Scandinavia (soon to be Eurabia). It will eventually spread here (Canabia?). If you are interested (and you should be!) read the book by Mark Steyn, titled, America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It.
We’re not fighting the Taiban in Afghanistan. We’re fighting Islam. And, we are wasting our time fighting there, while we are being infiltrated from within. We must fight HERE, to maintain our Canadian culture.
I predict, that unless we do, someday the war will be here and we will be fighting the Americans because, metaphorically speaking, we will be the Afghan citizens and our Muslim population will be the Taliban. America will not tolerate an Islamic state as it’s next-door neighbour. We will experience one of two possibilities: living under Sharia law or being annexed by America.
nelly
said
B. Lang
said
Colin
said
J. Bridson
said
Logic Please
said
Your personal anecdote does not make a case, for your (unspecified) point. I suspect that you are trying to make the point that because the woman COULD live to 100, the birth makes sense. While I concede that there are no guarantees in life, there are statistics, laws of averages and likelihoods. If you’re saying that because your parents died young, this woman is likely to live to 100, your logic is severely twisted. Statistically (just ask any insurance company) this woman will likely only live into her 70s. The fact that she is in intensive care, after an “easy” Caesarian and that delivery had to be done 7 weeks early, would suggest that her health will not take her much farther, if that. To use your “logic,” MAYBE she won’t even make it out of intensive care.
I suggest that you study up on argument logic, if you plan on making statements that attempt to postulate a point.
Paul - Kitchener,ON
said
"And then there was Abraham and Sarah (aged 100 and 90 respectively) when they had Isaac. That was God's intervention though, not man's."
Kelly
said
Devil's Advocate, Toronto
said
I have two uncles both of whom had children in their early 40s. Both had been married since their twenties and tried for 20 years to conceive. In this world of ours, we're told we do and have anything we want so, its devastating when you can't do something so basic as reproduce. I can understand if these two boys are this lady's first children. She must have wanted this so much if she was willing to kill herself for this.
Although I don't approve of her choice, I can understand where she's coming from.
Its a shame she probably won't get to see her children as adults.
Wawa
said
I see nanny's, loving patient parents, a sibling of the same age...mmm what's the problem, other than that they may die before graduation? There ARE no guarantees for anyone!
Darlene in Halifax
said
I was raised by 'older' parents and, yes there are some downsides, but so are there to having 'young' parents - are we to regulate parental age now? What do you intend to do to forcibly prevent those outside your 'appropriate' range from having children? Will you force contraceptive use, or take their children away from them just because they are too young or too old? I don't think any of us have the right to dictate such a thing, and the thought that so many of you seem to think you do is very disturbing.
If she wanted children that badly then who are all of you to say she is too old? I know 60 year olds who could beat the pants off of many lazy teenagers, so your assumption as to her energy level or lack thereof is rather presumptuous. I would suspect that none of you personally know the woman, so how do you know she is 'old' just from her age? 'Old' is an attitude, not a number.
And to those who think this is unnatural because she is post-menopausal, then you must not think it is ok to treat any woman with infertility problems. After all, fertility treatments and IVF are not 'natural' in any case, are they? Whether the problem is menopause, blocked tubes, whatever - if you cannot conceive 'naturally' then fertility treatments to assist with this is not ever a 'natural' state. So are you prepared to withhold that as well?
Think it through.
Nate
said
Mike in ON
said
It also irks me that this woman did an end run around the ethical and moral standards of Canadian doctors, had her procedure, and is now back, relying on the Canadian health care system to look after her. In my opinion, BECAUSE she disregarded her doctors here in Canada, who were following accepted practice in this country, she should be liable for her own medical bills.
I also wonder if the money for her first procedure (stolen), as well as the second, and the trips to India, are all paid for, or are they all on credit, or a second mortgage? If so, then not only are they not likely to be around for much of their kids' lives - but the kids may also find themselves having to pay off their parents' credit when they're gone.
Me Edmontonian
said
Logic Please
said
Your statement: <<
… is nonsensical. First of all, nobody suggested that she should die in front of the hospital. That’s a red herring or a straw dog. If the issue is health care, the point is the prevention of unnecessary costs. The preference would be for her not to have undergone such a procedure (illegal in Canada) at her age, which would very likely add to health care costs. If she wishes to cover her own health care costs and that of her children, she is welcome to do whatever she wants, even if it is a stupid and irresponsible act. While everybody has a right to be stupid, we the taxpayers should not have to pay to accommodate stupid deliberate decisions.
There is a large difference between this case and “curable medical ailments.” First of all, pregnancy is not a medical “ailment.” It is a natural function of humanity that, in order to minimize problems, requires medical assistance. Secondly, it isn’t “curable,” unless by prevention or abortion. Thirdly, are you suggesting that our health care system should be treating only patients who are curable? Or, to use your “logic,” should terminal patients be left to die in front of the hospital?
Your statement is utter nonsense. I suggest, as I did previously to Cath, that you study up on argument logic, if you plan on making statements that attempt to postulate a point.
Please people, think a bit and reread before submitting.