Pregnant again—at 65
Annegret Raunigk of Berlin, Germany is sixty-five, and she decided that having a baby would be just the thing.
It’s not that Raunigk lacked for children; she’s got thirteen (by five different fathers), and the youngest is nine. Not to mention seven grandchildren.
But her 9-year-old wanted “a little brother or sister,” and so Annegret took the plunge via artificial insemination. But since a 65-year-old ordinarily cannot be made to ovulate, even with all the hormonal priming in the world, both donor eggs and donor sperm were used. That means that, although Raunigk is now pregnant with quadruplets (as happens more often with artificial insemination, because multiple embryos are usually implanted in order to heighten the odds of ending up with a baby), none of them are her biological children.
I can understand surrogate mothers who gestate a baby that isn’t their own because they are trying to help a couple in which the woman for some reason cannot carry a baby to term. But why would a 65-year-old with thirteen children feel she just must have the pregnancy experience again, and be willing go to such great lengths to do so? More importantly, how on earth can she get a doctor to cooperate?
Oh, I know, I know; there appears to be something compulsive going on here on the part of the woman, and something unethical and/or money-grubbing on the part of the doctor.
Plus, it’s Germany. Who footed the bill? The state? No article I’ve seen seems to offer that little detail, or even ask the question. The research I’ve done only goes up to 2008, but it appears that it would be Raunigk herself who would have to pay out of pocket, even in Germany.
As someone with libertarian leanings, I guess I shouldn’t care if a woman such as Reunigk decides to do this, especially if she pays for it herself. On the other hand, it seems to me that there should be some limits on medical interventions that could endanger a person’s life (as I believe this probably does, even though Raunigk is sure she’ll be fine and I suppose she’s more likely than not correct) for seemingly no reason other than whim. This should not be considered good medical practice, but I suppose you can always find a doctor willing to do almost anything, and that’s probably what happened with Raunigk.
You can’t look up the risks for a 65-year-old woman in pregnancy and delivery, because there are no statistics. And you really can’t look up the risks of a 65-year-old woman having quadruplets, because there really are no statistics. Raunigk seems to be it. But she’s not quite alone:
At present, the oldest woman to have given birth to quads is Merryl Fudel, who was 55 at the time.
The oldest woman ever to give birth is Indian Omkari Panwar, who was believed to be 70.
Raunigk should hope she doesn’t go the way of Fudel, though. The article about Raunigk doesn’t go into what happened to Fudel and her children, but in a separate article I found this:
One quadruplet, Brooke, lived just eight days…
Fudel surrendered two of the quads, Brianna and Brittany, for adoption, according to one of her ex-husbands.
The fourth child, Dario, remained with his mother, who could not be located for this report.
“I am not surprised she kept the boy and gave away the girls,” said her third ex, Thomas Cunningham, 81, of San Diego. “She was nutty as a fruitcake.”
Nothing is known about the surviving kids’ current health, but, born three months prematurely on April 18, 1998, they began life with a host of serious problems. Their medical tab hit $2 million in just four months. It was paid by the state-funded MediCal program because Fudel was unemployed.
All of these older mothers who become pregnant were carrying babies conceived with donor egg and sperm. And lest you think they are all rich or Western, think again and take a look at 70-year-old Omkari Panwar and her 77-year-old husband:
To pay for the IVF treatment vital to producing a male heir to the family’s smallholdings, the retired farmer sold his buffalos, mortgaged his land, spent his life savings and took out a credit card loan.
And it all paid off when Mrs Panwar gave birth to twins – a boy and girl – by emergency Caesarean section in hospital in Muzaffarnagar, seven hours drive north of the Indian capital New Delhi.
The twins, born a month premature and weighing 2lb each, are healthy, according to doctors.
The Panwars already have two adult daughters, and five grandchildren, but the latest arrivals are what they have been waiting for – not least because a son will benefit from a dowry when he marries and will be able to work their land.
There is apparently no real impediment to finding a doctor willing to cooperate in such a task. My next question, though, is: who is donating the eggs and sperm? Sperm I can understand; that’s easy. But egg donation is a complex endeavor:
The egg donation cycle itself usually takes about 3-4 weeks, and you will be administering self-injections of hormonal medications to help your ovaries produce multiple eggs. During this phase, you will have frequent office visits to monitor your progress. When our physicians determine that your eggs are ready for ovulation, you will trigger ovulation with a different type of injection, and egg retrieval is performed on the next day…
Egg retrieval is always performed under ultrasound guidance. However, there is always a risk that a needle may puncture surrounding tissue or organs causing injury, bleeding and/or infection. There is also a small risk (less than 5%) of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. During ovarian hyperstimulation, the ovaries become enlarged and fluid may collect in the abdominal cavity causing bloating; a weight gain of 5-10 pounds and severe pelvic pain may occur. Hospitalization may be required if ovarian hyperstimulation progresses to a severe state. In addition, certain studies have suggested that some ovulation drugs are associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer…
Are the women donating their eggs told they will be helping a childless couple finally achieve their lifelong dream? Or are they told that someone like Raunigk or Panwar could be the “new” mom of any embryo conceived with their donated egg? And would they care?
By the way, donors receive $8,000 for their pains.
Oh Brave New World that has such people in it!
Well, the seems the natural progression of the idea that it is only the mother’s well-being that is important in a pregnancy, as abortion activists like to tell us. Seems her doctors were focused on what she wanted and not what was best for the children.
Taking on a pregnancy at that age is so self-centered, and appears to not have taken into consideration that the mother will likely not live through her quads’ childhood (graduating HS when she’s 83?). I imagine the babies were at greater risk of miscarriage.
So sad.
Endangering herself, I can – maybe – understand that. (There still remains the ethical problem of OTHER people close to her supporting such whims and allowing her to risk her life/health, of course.)
But endangering the CHILDREN, with all the extra health risks that must accompany such a pregnancy?! Creating them ad hoc (not that there are not serious bioethical problems with that alone) only to put them in such a sub-optimal situation with all the increased risks? And if they should live and be healthy, as we must hope now that they already exist, what kind of psychological repercussions will there be growing up with parents that much older, and eventually learning about the context in which they were “created”?
Also, risking that other children she already has may lose their mother? Her grandchildren, grandmother? That I cannot understand.
This is appalling and so obvious wrong.
I can’t understand why anybody would want to have children at that age but men do it too.
http://www.ibtimes.com/steve-martin-dad-67-year-old-actor-welcomes-first-child-wife-anne-springfield-1084006
Narcissistic indulgence is another so-called “wicked problem”. The first was probably elective abortion, which is directly related. In both, the popular solution is to provide positive feedback to confirm the dysfunctional orientation and encourage the behavior.
That said, a human life has been classified as an asset by the State and State-establish religion, which following policies of abortion can be liquidated at her convenience, and following diversity is interchangeable. Confusion seems to be an inevitable outcome of progressive morality.
A woman alum from Creighton Law School recently was pregnant with twins. She was 55 or 56 at the time. As an undergrad she won the highest student award: The Spirit of Creighton. After working as a lawyer in Nebraska for a few years, she graduated from the medical school at Kansas.
Her pregnancy was difficult. She died shortly after the twins were born. Her husband is about the same age.
Her name was Lisa Swinton. She worked for the Red Cross in Maryland. Story was in the OWH and at the Creighton website.
Extremely tough all around.
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/baltimore-woman-56-dies-delivering-twins-article-1.2094085
NY Daily News story on Lisa and with pictures.
Anyone who purposely has children at an older age, past say 45, is a selfish a-hole. Correct me if I’m wrong but being born is the start, not the end of child’s upbringing. These kids will plant their mother long before they are old enough to function as adults most likely.
Being an orphan sucks. It happens, but shouldn’t be built in on the front end. Although with mothers this narcissistic, perhaps her early demise will be a blessing. In reality, in the choice between a bad, selfish parent and a dead parent, go with dead parent.
JK Brown:
I agree that she’s selfish and foolish, but not for the reason you state. A woman of 65 has a good chance of living at least 20 more healthy years (see this). In addition, in a family with 13 children, most of them already grown (the oldest is 44), these children would have a large extended family on which to call if anything happens to the mother.
I think their chances of having prematurity and all its complications are huge, though. It seems as though this is some way for the mother to prove she’s still young and vital. I would think there are better ways.
The Revolution will eat their own. So will Western civ, or what is left of it.