How could you not be moved by the story of Amillia Taylor, the tiny baby born after just under 22 weeks in her mommy's tummy? She was less than 10 inches long, and weighed under 10 ounces, when she was born in October. She has spent most of her life in the NICU since then but was released to go home for the first time yesterday. What a joyful day for a baby who had little chance of survival. She is believed to be one of the youngest preemies to survive. A typical gestation is about 37 to 40 weeks. My daughter was born at 35 weeks, and even at that age still had to spend time in the NICU before coming home. Although we were told she was never in any immediate danger, it was scary to have her hooked up to so many tubes, and it was sad when she couldn't come home straight from the hospital nursery. I can't begin to imagine what four months in the NICU was like.
I asked my wife what she thought of Amillia's story, and she said "Every family has a miracle. Look within your own family because miracles are there."
According to the Miami Herald the mother is 37 and the father is 46, and Amillia was conceived with the help of in vitro fertilization.
It could be argued - and in fact is being argued now on some other blogs - the the benefits of bringing a young baby into the world this way need to be weighed against the potential risks, which this case makes clear. Some have argued that adoption would have been a better choice than IVF for the Taylors (and in their defense, they are also in the process of adopting a 16-year-old daughter.) Any thoughts?
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
An older dad, a miracle baby
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
An older dad and a baby at very high risk for autism or schizophrenia, mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy,and a horrible life. There is a male biological clock and advanced paternal age and human genetic disease are connected. 46 year old men should not become fathers. True the risk is much higher at 46 for daughters. If a son is born to an older father there is a greater chance of normal development.
35 for fathers is truly the beginning of the risk period for offspring. We have so much autism and schizophrenia and diabetes1 now because the information on the male biological clock has been spun and suppressed by the pharmaceutical/psychiatric complex. They reap the profits while the children affected suffer horrible fates.
Thanks for your comment, it's very thought-provoking. I have two points to make:
1) We've talked a little bit about at what advanced age it is that people become uncomfortable at the thought of someone having a baby. Is it 42, as I was, or 48 as with Matt Lauer, or in the 70s like Tony Randall, or 35 as you have suggested? (listen to the Plum interview on my earlier post for an example of this discussion.) But the other question, in addition to the age, is what level of risk is acceptable? If 90 percent of children of older parents are "normal," is that acceptable? Compare that to someone who, say, has an autosomal dominant condition such as Huntington's Disease, where their risk if 50 percent, so any children they would have would be, if I'm not mistaken, 25 percent. And who decides what is "acceptable" risk?
2) I don't doubt that the male biological clock has gotten less attention than the female counterpart has, I just wonder if the reason for that is because the information is being suppressed as you suggest, or because there is a kind of media bias that focuses on women more than men, because they are traditionally much more likely to be consumers of pregnancy/parenting publications. What do you think?
The only suggestion I have is for you to spend some time visiting a state psychiatric hospital ward for schizophrenic and autistic people and find out the ages of the fathers, in sporadic, non-familial cases. Then interview these people on their lives and how they feel. Best not to interpret what they say,just take dictation. Try visiting over a period of time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/health/27sper.html?ref=science
This is a New York Times article called, "It Seems the Fertility Clock Ticks for Males Too." by Roni Rabin 2/27/2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/health/27sper.html?8dpc
Sorry, I tried the 1st link I had and it didn't work to get back to the article. I think this one should work.
I read it, it's a real good article. Michael Stroh of the Baltimore Sun also did a good story on the concept of the male biological clock at the end of last summer. I think you have to pay to read it now at the Baltimore Sun's site, but you may be able to read a copy for free online through your local library.
That NYT story must have really resonated with readers. When I was on their site today I noticed it was the second most e-mailed story of the day. Thanks for the link!
My second son was born when I was 33, turned out both his mother and I possess a recessive gene that caused his fatal birth defect. No screening for that gene existed at the time. Call it dumb luck, God's will or whatever, the fact is that having a child involves potential risk no matter what the age of the parents.
With the three healthy children I have in this marriage, all born after I hit the 50 year point, I'd say the topic of older parents should stay centered more on their ability to adequately provide for their offspring. Using that criteria, there are quite a few younger parents who would be disqualified.
Here's a thought; why don't we all just mind our own business?
By the way, nice to find a blog dedicated to older fathers. Seems to be scarce.
Thanks for the post, subvet. You have an interesting profile. I'd like to hear more about you and your experience - how old are your kids now, and what has it been like for you being an after-50 father?
Amillia Taylor is great story in baby survival, many of newborn had a very little chance to get survive after born early, Amillia Taylor is great story.
Goonie
Baby First year
thanks for weighing in on the subject...
Good design!
Nice site!
There are a lot of resources out there on baby surgery. It would take ages to study it all. What we've done is brought it all together, so that it's all available here, in this one place.
I am a female, age 36, and my husband is 49. We have one healthy six-year old son and I very much would like to have another. It took us 2 years to conceive our son and we tried for 2 years to concieve another with no luck. My husband (who is an amazing and involved father) would like another child but is too concerned about his age and thinks it is somewhat irresponsible to have a child that will be graduating from high school when he would be 68.
I don't really share that concern as he is more physical and youthful than many guys in their late 30's-early 40's.
I do have some concerns about my age and the increased risk for birth defects and to a less extent his age, though he was 43 when we had our first son and he is healthy, but I sometime wonder if I am being selfish and chancing things if I continue to try for another.
At this point we have "stopped trying" though in my heart I really don't want to. It is a very complex subject and I was thrilled to find this blog and have access to information and opinions I did not have before.
Christine
Guys, I can appreciate your wanting to have kids but the fact is that having them when you are older can cause problems and if you have a damaged or disabled child who will take care of said child when you are gone or become ill yourself? Many of these kids will outlive you and then what? Are they societies problem? What quality of life will they have? If you are too selfish to consider this all before you have kids then you are too selfish to become a parent. And yes, I'm over 40 and have chosen to consider my unborn children and not have any.
Thanks for your comment today. I certainly know guys without children about my age who would agree with you and who feel their time to father children has come and gone. And you're right that it is difficult when a father dies, whether it's a special need kid or not. My father died when I was 9, leaving my mom a single mother in her 50s to two young boys. I know that was hard on her, but we got through.
Thanks for sharing your perspective.
Well all soon to be parents have the risk of carrying a baby with a genetic disorder etc...regardless of AGE. I agree that the risks do increase as you get older, but doesn't mean it will def happen! There were many young parents who had children w/ birth defects and older parents who had healthy babies..it's just a random chance. I think fathers are considered old when they hit 45, but before that, it's considered normal as there are many men who become dads to healthy kids.
Post a Comment