My dad was 48 and my mom 38, I had three grandparents until I was 13 and 2 until I had a mortgage.
Sadly my son won’t remember his grandpa, but that wouldn’t have been the case if I hadn’t also married and had kids late.
In my case, yes. There’s less than a two year gap between me and my wife.
I dunno, while I’m sure it depends on each individual, of course, I’m in better shape now than I was 10 years ago, and can run 8 miles without a problem, but there’s still something about my age that makes everything just feel more mentally and physically exhausting than it would have 10 years ago. Even though I’m in better shape, I can feel my body wearing and tearing much more easily if I make a move the wrong way, or forget to lift from the legs, or something like that. And there’s lots of these little movements with kids. But it’s awesome, and I can’t wait for #2 to arrive.
Sure, but back when my coworker was pregnant the circumstances were different in regards to testing. She wasn’t opposed to all tests, but she had a doc that was really pushing for screening. And I don’t there there were any prenatal surgeries or therapies being done back then.
Obviously, this is a decision for the parents and doctor to discuss and decide.
My wife is about 3 years younger than me.
I was going to say I don’t know what you are talking about…but then I remembered all those trips to the sports medicine doctor for random aches and pains I got from overtraining. Still, all things considered, I don’t really feel that different mentally or physically from when I was in my late 20s. Actually, in a way it’s sort of weird. At my last job at a tech consulting firm, we had a lot of young people. Someone found out it was my birthday and asked how old I was and as a joke I said “28” and people were like “oh. ok” like that’s what they expected.
Okay, but I was referring to the situation today. Her’s may have been different, though screening still would have helped her cope before birth if there were a positive diagnosis.
I believe in full information for informed consent. I think doctors shouldn’t “push” for things, but rather explain them fully. I’d like doctors to tell pregnant women what I said, that screening (as opposed to invasive tests) have no risk and that they can be very useful, medically and otherwise, not just to decide whether to abort.
Yeah, on the other hand, if a family has little money and has to pay for the testing themselves insisting on testing that isn’t essential can also put an enormous strain on a family, too, which is mostly an American problem I think. When a young couple is already needing to go into debt just for the copays on normal labor and delivery adding more expense has to be examined for necessity. Screening tests may not have a medical risk but they do have a financial cost that, for poor people, can have a great impact.
Obviously cost is a factor in any medical treatment.
The screening I’m talking about isn’t very expensive, and may be fully covered by insurance. Basically, non-invasive screens for birth defects today consist of combining ultrasound - something most pregnant women and doctors consider a standard, necessary procedure - with a simply test of the mother’s blood.
Probably cheaper than prenatal vitamins, which are are standard way of preventing some birth defects.
But if it’s not worth the money to someone, that’s fine.
A quick google shows that a prenatal ultrasound without health insurance costs $200-300 in the US. Perhaps that’s an inconsequential cost to the middle class, but to the working poor who are already facing impending hospital costs, unpaid maternity leave, and pending childcare costs it’s not cheap, it’s actually quite a significant expense. And there are still millions of Americans without health coverage, being too “wealthy” to qualify for Medicaid and too poor to purchase it otherwise. Granted, there are places where costs to uninsured pregnant women are either greatly reduced or waived, but knowing about them and getting access to them are also a problem.
A pregnant woman getting an ultrasound for “only” $250 then having to eat a deficient diet for the next few weeks until the foodstamps come around again due to having greatly diminished funds may not be a net gain.
Yes - if they are uninsured, and if they have to pay in full. They may also go to a clinic that provides them for reduced or no cost, or a hospital may simply eat the cost, as you mentioned. That’s how it works in the U.S. You can never look at a price tag in health care and think it’s the actual price or that someone is paying all of it. It’s a crazy, ad hoc system that tries to make sure most people get care one way or the other.
But here’s the important point - ultrasound is considered standard prenatal care. It’s far more than a screen for birth defects. Most women who say they wouldn’t want to screen for Down syndrome or other birth defects still get ultrasounds. So it’s not really relevant here.
But the ultrasound isn’t just for birth defects. It also helps determine the age of the fetus (and thus whether to intervene if labor starts somewhat early or late). The later ultrasound that had become standard also diagnoses things like a breech presentation, which is helpful to know about before labor begins – sometimes a breech baby can be manipulated by the doctor before it “drops”, eliminating a lot of risk, including the risk of an expensive c-section.
And if you have health insurance, it’s probably covered.
There are different risks when the father is old. Because the cells that produce sperm are constantly dividing over a man’s life, they are more susceptible to environmental toxins than are eggs. Sort of like how chemotherapy kills rapidly dividing cells like tumors and the cells that grow hair, but mostly doesn’t kill cells that are just quietly their thing.