What are the dangers of of a man having their first child at 40

[lance_strongarm]

@Broomstick

I suggested she tell her doctor that, because all a lot of those tests do is tell you something is wrong and then the next question is “do you want to abort this pregnancy?” At that time there really weren’t any other options. If you already know the answer is “no” then what’s the point of the test? If you’re going to keep the baby no matter what then what’s the point of all those tests? Particularly those that pose a risk of miscarriage.

I understand why you may think that, but I disagree based on personal experience.

Knowing in advance that our child would have DS allowed us to look for medical conditions known to be more common in DS, and to prepare to deal with those at or immediately after birth, including assuring that the hospital had the right facilities and the doctors were prepared.

It allowed us to educate ourselves all about DS.

It allowed us to come to terms with the diagnosis emotionally, and to tell our family about it in advance so the shock wouldn’t come at birth.

It allowed us to find and connect with support groups.

And as you noted, prenatal testing is increasingly allowing for treatments of certain conditions before birth. That is happening now, though it’s not common yet. There’s no way to “cure” DS itself, of course, but DS comes with many possible health problems such as heart defects, and some may be treatable in utero now or in the future.

The risk of miscarriage is obviously a concern, but not all screenings carry that risk. These days, DS can be predicted with a claimed 99% certainty with no invasive tests like an amnio using a combination of ultrasound and maternal blood test.

[lance_strongarm]

P.S. Another advantage of prenatal diagnosis - it allowed us to not only screen for medical issues, but discuss those issues with our doctors with plenty of time to make informed decisions.

[md2000]

So many of these articles are scare stories with little detail. If the risk to a 45+ father is that their child will have 1.65 risk of death from congenital abnormalities, versus children of fathers 30-34 (the control group) had a risk of 1.00, what’s the actual risk? one in 60,000 vs. one in 100,000 ? They don’t say. Considering the vast vast majority of all children are “normal” (within measure, depending on how you judge the neighbour’s children, ha-ha) then the risk is pretty much infinitesimal.

[md2000]

@lance_strongarm

Presuming you would not want a child with Down syndrome. (I have one.)

Interestingly, the old recommendation that mothers undergo amniocentesis when signs of Down syndrome or other conditions are present at age 35 or older is not based only on the risk of birth defects. It’s the age when the risk of miscarriage caused by the amnio is lower than the risk of birth defects. The assumption is that a mother would rather have a miscarriage of a normal child than risk not having the chance to abort a child with a defect. The doctors never explained that to the mothers to let them make an informed decision about the risks.

I read somewhere that the most Down’s syndrome children are born to young mothers (Sarah Palin’s grandchild, case in point) because (a) more women have children when younger than older, and (b) older women more often test for the condition.

[lance_strongarm]

@md2000

I read somewhere that the most Down’s syndrome children are born to young mothers (Sarah Palin’s grandchild, case in point) because (a) more women have children when younger than older, and (b) older women more often test for the condition.

I’ve read that too.

[Smeghead]

I happen to be very familiar with the maternal age effect - the increased incidence of aneuploidy with maternal age - and I’ll point those interested to this graph, which shows that by the time a woman is in her early 40s, she has about a 1 in 3 chance of conceiving an aneuploid fetus. That is, a fetus with one or more extra or missing chromosomes. The vast majority of these will be miscarried. Indeed, aneuploidy is the leading cause of miscarriage. But this effect is behind the increase in Down syndrome in older women. There are a few theories about what the cause of this is, but it almost certainly has to do with the fact that oocytes start meiosis before the woman in born, and then arrest for 10, 20, 30, or 40 years until they’re ovulated, and in that time, the forces holding the chromosomes together are almost certainly deteriorating.

Anyway, that’s the mom side. I don’t know much about the dad side, other than to say that because sperm are constantly being produced, no similar arrest occurs.

[lance_strongarm]

@Smeghead

I happen to be very familiar with the maternal age effect - the increased incidence of aneuploidy with maternal age - and I’ll point those interested to this graph, which shows that by the time a woman is in her early 40s, she has about a 1 in 3 chance of conceiving an aneuploid fetus. That is, a fetus with one or more extra or missing chromosomes. The vast majority of these will be miscarried. Indeed, aneuploidy is the leading cause of miscarriage. But this effect is behind the increase in Down syndrome in older women. There are a few theories about what the cause of this is, but it almost certainly has to do with the fact that oocytes start meiosis before the woman in born, and then arrest for 10, 20, 30, or 40 years until they’re ovulated, and in that time, the forces holding the chromosomes together are almost certainly deteriorating.

Anyway, that’s the mom side. I don’t know much about the dad side, other than to say that because sperm are constantly being produced, no similar arrest occurs.

Interesting. I have also heard the theory that an older woman’s body is less likely to reject an imperfect fetus (assuming it has that capability).

[Tom_Tildrum]

@md2000

I read somewhere that the most Down’s syndrome children are born to young mothers (Sarah Palin’s grandchild, case in point)

Sarah Palin’s son has Down’s Syndrome, and he was born when she was 44. I’ve never read that either of her grandchildren also have Down’s.

[Mr.Nylock]

@Tom_Tildrum

I was 44 when my first child arrived. FWIW, I had raised concerns about my age with the doctor, who is very much an expert in the area, and she was completely unconcerned.

Thanks for the response - it is very good to hear. I’m 39 - so I’m starting to wonder about these things.

On an unrelated note, I think we may have met in real life once; or sort of met - I used to work at a shop bike shop in Virginia; you’re name sounds familiar. I could be mistaken though.

[Smeghead]

@lance_strongarm

Interesting. I have also heard the theory that an older woman’s body is less likely to reject an imperfect fetus (assuming it has that capability).

I’m not aware of any evidence to support that hypothesis.

[TruCelt]

There is an increased incidence of schizophrenia among children of Fathers over 50. There’s no information here about the curve of the increase though.

Parental age and risk of schizophrenia: a case-control study - PubMed

[md2000]

@Tom_Tildrum

Sarah Palin’s son has Down’s Syndrome, and he was born when she was 44. I’ve never read that either of her grandchildren also have Down’s.

Doh! My bad!

I was conflating the fact the daughter had a child and remembering her holding her baby brother in some rallies on TV.

[lance_strongarm]

@Smeghead

I’m not aware of any evidence to support that hypothesis.

Me neither. Just heard it somewhere.

[watchwolf49]

The biggest problem with having children at 40 is they’re already full grown … might be a difficult delivery.

[Tatterdemalion]

@watchwolf49

The biggest problem with having children at 40 is they’re already full grown … might be a difficult delivery.

On the other hand, you get to miss the teen years.

[lance_strongarm]

@watchwolf49

The biggest problem with having children at 40 is they’re already full grown … might be a difficult delivery.

Easy on the potty-training and college expenses though.

[pulykamell]

Anecdota and not a GQ answerl, but I’m 40 and have a 17 month old and a second on her way in February. The only issue with me waiting to this age to have kids is it would have been a hell of a lot easier to this in a 30-year old’s body. Children are exhausting!

[msmith537]

@pulykamell

Anecdota and not a GQ answerl, but I’m 40 and have a 17 month old and a second on her way in February. The only issue with me waiting to this age to have kids is it would have been a hell of a lot easier to this in a 30-year old’s body. Children are exhausting!

Depends on the body. I had my first child at 41 a little over a year ago. As it happens, for the past 2 years I was in one of those Spartan mud races and trained pretty heavily for them. I don’t recall being able to (or even trying) to run 8 miles in my 30s.

I have a number of friends and relatives about the same age who all had their first kids within the past few years. All of them came out fine. Although one of the dangers is that you may have trouble having them at all. I have a couple friends in their 40s who had trouble and ultimately ended up adopting.

Not really a “danger” but one of the downsides of having kids in your 40s is that your parents are a lot older. So your kids won’t enjoy their grandparents as long. You’re a lot older too. Maybe not now, but in 20 years, you’ll be 60. But that’s not really a reason not to have kids in your 40s.
And our son turned out really cute, so I have no complaints.

[Indistinguishable]

A number of men have posted in this thread about having children in their 40s. Might I ask, just to augment the anecdotal data, if the mothers were also of comparable age?

[Sicks_Ate]

I’m getting ready to have another, I just turned 40. My wife is 33.

Genetic indicators and ultrasounds are all normal at 20 weeks.

The autism thing is new to me, though. Not much I can do about that, so I’m not going to worry about it.

One thing I am glad of is that I in good physical condition and plan on remaining so. Lots of articles about being a dad in your 40’s lament not being able to run after your toddler or lift up a pre-schooler What??