World's oldest mother dies

[crofty1984]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8152002.stm

Well done love, there's a reason our bodies wear out. But luckily you managed to lie to the people that are there to help real needy couples that can't have babies through no fault of their own (rather than because they waited until they are in their mid 60's) And now you got what you want. Hoorah for you. And all it took was two little boys to have their mother die at the age of 3, and Your family to have to care for them (if what you automatically assumed is correct) regardless of whether they have the means to, or if they were actually planning on having extra kids.
But it's OK, because you exercised your right to be a mother.

BBC said:

A Spanish woman who became the world's oldest new mother when she gave birth in 2006 to twin boys at the age of 66 has died, her family has said.

The brother of Maria del Carmen Bousada de Lara told the paper Diario de Cadiz she passed away on Saturday, aged 69.

It said she had been diagnosed with cancer shortly after giving birth.

In 2007, Ms Bousada de Lara said she had lied about her age to doctors at a fertility clinic in California to get IVF treatment, telling them she was 55.

Ms Bousada de Lara argued that there was no reason to believe she would not have as long a life as her mother, who died at the age of 101. She even joked that she might live to see her grandchildren.

She also insisted that if she died prematurely her sons Christian and Pau, who are now two years old, would never be alone.

"There are lots of young people in our family," she added.

When the twins were born in Barcelona on 29 December 2006, Ms Bousada de Lara was aged 66 years 358 days, 130 days older than Romanian Adriana Iliescu, who gave birth in 2005 to a baby girl.

[Jasandjules]

That's a shame.

Was the cancer a direct result of the pregnancy?

[Tunku]

Mrs. Tunkus mum was 80 odd when she died. That's much older than 69

[Neil_H]

I just posted a thread before I saw this. Kids will now grow up without any parents - what a selfish cow.

[s3fella]

There is critisism (rightly so) about her lies telling the IVF clinc she was 55 not 66......BUT WTF...IVF at 55.......

These people need a reality check they really do!

[triggersbroom]

Neil_H said:

I just posted a thread before I saw this. Kids will now grow up without any parents - what a selfish cow.

True in what you say, but in this case she died of cancer.

A friend of mine died from cancer at age 40, and left a six and four year old.

What's the difference? She may have lived to her 80's if it weren't for the cancer. That's the thing about life, you just don't know when you number is up!

[ludo]

triggersbroom said:

Neil_H said:

I just posted a thread before I saw this. Kids will now grow up without any parents - what a selfish cow.

True in what you say, but in this case she died of cancer.

A friend of mine died from cancer at age 40, and left a six and four year old.

What's the difference? She may have lived to her 80's if it weren't for the cancer. That's the thing about life, you just don't know when you number is up!

the difference is that at 66 you are much more likely to develop cancer than you are at 36. At 36 you can be confident that you are much more likely to be alive than dead in twenty years, at 66 you are much more likely to be dead in twenty years than alive.

[triggersbroom]

ludo said:

triggersbroom said:

Neil_H said:

I just posted a thread before I saw this. Kids will now grow up without any parents - what a selfish cow.

True in what you say, but in this case she died of cancer.

A friend of mine died from cancer at age 40, and left a six and four year old.

What's the difference? She may have lived to her 80's if it weren't for the cancer. That's the thing about life, you just don't know when you number is up!

the difference is that at 66 you are much more likely to develop cancer than you are at 36. At 36 you can be confident that you are much more likely to be alive than dead in twenty years, at 66 you are much more likely to be dead in twenty years than alive.

I disagree with this. Statistically yes, but this is not cast in stone. That is the thing about life

I do agree that it was selfish of her to have children so late in life, and lie about her age though.

BTW, my father passed away at 76 - I was 21 at the time. Am I bitter? Not really.

ETA - A friend of my wife's husband died of a heat attack at 34 leaving a two and five year old. This sort of thing happens all the time... again, life is unpredictable.

Edited by triggersbroom on Thursday 16th July 12:30

[ludo]

triggersbroom said:

ludo said:

triggersbroom said:

Neil_H said:

I just posted a thread before I saw this. Kids will now grow up without any parents - what a selfish cow.

True in what you say, but in this case she died of cancer.

A friend of mine died from cancer at age 40, and left a six and four year old.

What's the difference? She may have lived to her 80's if it weren't for the cancer. That's the thing about life, you just don't know when you number is up!

the difference is that at 66 you are much more likely to develop cancer than you are at 36. At 36 you can be confident that you are much more likely to be alive than dead in twenty years, at 66 you are much more likely to be dead in twenty years than alive.

I disagree with this. Statistically yes, but this is not cast in stone.

of course it is only a statistical argument, however in working out the best course of action for an uncertain future statistical arguments are exactly what is required. If you plan assuming that something that is statistically likely won't happen because it isn't set in stone it isn't a rational course of action. It would be like borrowing a huge sum of money and then playing the lottery to pay it off. It isn't set in stone that you won't win the lottery, but the chances are against it, so you would be ill-advised to follow that particular course of action. This is no different.

[triggersbroom]

ludo said:

triggersbroom said:

ludo said:

triggersbroom said:

Neil_H said:

I just posted a thread before I saw this. Kids will now grow up without any parents - what a selfish cow.

True in what you say, but in this case she died of cancer.

A friend of mine died from cancer at age 40, and left a six and four year old.

What's the difference? She may have lived to her 80's if it weren't for the cancer. That's the thing about life, you just don't know when you number is up!

the difference is that at 66 you are much more likely to develop cancer than you are at 36. At 36 you can be confident that you are much more likely to be alive than dead in twenty years, at 66 you are much more likely to be dead in twenty years than alive.

I disagree with this. Statistically yes, but this is not cast in stone.

of course it is only a statistical argument, however in working out the best course of action for an uncertain future statistical arguments are exactly what is required. If you plan assuming that something that is statistically likely won't happen because it isn't set in stone it isn't a rational course of action. It would be like borrowing a huge sum of money and then playing the lottery to pay it off. It isn't set in stone that you won't win the lottery, but the chances are against it, so you would be ill-advised to follow that particular course of action. This is no different.

I guess you are right. Life is a lottery

Edited by triggersbroom on Thursday 16th July 12:36

[ludo]

triggersbroom said:

ludo said:

triggersbroom said:

ludo said:

triggersbroom said:

Neil_H said:

I just posted a thread before I saw this. Kids will now grow up without any parents - what a selfish cow.

True in what you say, but in this case she died of cancer.

A friend of mine died from cancer at age 40, and left a six and four year old.

What's the difference? She may have lived to her 80's if it weren't for the cancer. That's the thing about life, you just don't know when you number is up!

the difference is that at 66 you are much more likely to develop cancer than you are at 36. At 36 you can be confident that you are much more likely to be alive than dead in twenty years, at 66 you are much more likely to be dead in twenty years than alive.

I disagree with this. Statistically yes, but this is not cast in stone.

of course it is only a statistical argument, however in working out the best course of action for an uncertain future statistical arguments are exactly what is required. If you plan assuming that something that is statistically likely won't happen because it isn't set in stone it isn't a rational course of action. It would be like borrowing a huge sum of money and then playing the lottery to pay it off. It isn't set in stone that you won't win the lottery, but the chances are against it, so you would be ill-advised to follow that particular course of action. This is no different.

I guess you are right. Life is a lottery

quite and some lotteries are more rational to play than others, depending on the odds!

Edited by ludo on Thursday 16th July 12:38

[triggersbroom]

ludo said:

triggersbroom said:

ludo said:

triggersbroom said:

ludo said:

triggersbroom said:

Neil_H said:

I just posted a thread before I saw this. Kids will now grow up without any parents - what a selfish cow.

True in what you say, but in this case she died of cancer.

A friend of mine died from cancer at age 40, and left a six and four year old.

What's the difference? She may have lived to her 80's if it weren't for the cancer. That's the thing about life, you just don't know when you number is up!

the difference is that at 66 you are much more likely to develop cancer than you are at 36. At 36 you can be confident that you are much more likely to be alive than dead in twenty years, at 66 you are much more likely to be dead in twenty years than alive.

I disagree with this. Statistically yes, but this is not cast in stone.

of course it is only a statistical argument, however in working out the best course of action for an uncertain future statistical arguments are exactly what is required. If you plan assuming that something that is statistically likely won't happen because it isn't set in stone it isn't a rational course of action. It would be like borrowing a huge sum of money and then playing the lottery to pay it off. It isn't set in stone that you won't win the lottery, but the chances are against it, so you would be ill-advised to follow that particular course of action. This is no different.

I guess you are right. Life is a lottery

quite and some lotteries are more rational to play than others, depending on the odds!

Yep, and I guess there is more chance of dying than winning said lottery

Edited by triggersbroom on Thursday 16th July 12:44

[esselte]

triggersbroom said:

ludo said:

triggersbroom said:

ludo said:

triggersbroom said:

Neil_H said:

I just posted a thread before I saw this. Kids will now grow up without any parents - what a selfish cow.

True in what you say, but in this case she died of cancer.

A friend of mine died from cancer at age 40, and left a six and four year old.

What's the difference? She may have lived to her 80's if it weren't for the cancer. That's the thing about life, you just don't know when you number is up!

the difference is that at 66 you are much more likely to develop cancer than you are at 36. At 36 you can be confident that you are much more likely to be alive than dead in twenty years, at 66 you are much more likely to be dead in twenty years than alive.

I disagree with this. Statistically yes, but this is not cast in stone.

of course it is only a statistical argument, however in working out the best course of action for an uncertain future statistical arguments are exactly what is required. If you plan assuming that something that is statistically likely won't happen because it isn't set in stone it isn't a rational course of action. It would be like borrowing a huge sum of money and then playing the lottery to pay it off. It isn't set in stone that you won't win the lottery, but the chances are against it, so you would be ill-advised to follow that particular course of action. This is no different.

I guess you are right. Life is a lottery

Edited by triggersbroom on Thursday 16th July 12:36

I thought it was like a box of chocolates...

[Neil_H]

triggersbroom said:

ludo said:

triggersbroom said:

Neil_H said:

I just posted a thread before I saw this. Kids will now grow up without any parents - what a selfish cow.

True in what you say, but in this case she died of cancer.

A friend of mine died from cancer at age 40, and left a six and four year old.

What's the difference? She may have lived to her 80's if it weren't for the cancer. That's the thing about life, you just don't know when you number is up!

the difference is that at 66 you are much more likely to develop cancer than you are at 36. At 36 you can be confident that you are much more likely to be alive than dead in twenty years, at 66 you are much more likely to be dead in twenty years than alive.

I disagree with this. Statistically yes, but this is not cast in stone. That is the thing about life

I do agree that it was selfish of her to have children so late in life, and lie about her age though.

BTW, my father passed away at 76 - I was 21 at the time. Am I bitter? Not really.

ETA - A friend of my wife's husband died of a heat attack at 34 leaving a two and five year old. This sort of thing happens all the time... again, life is unpredictable.

Edited by triggersbroom on Thursday 16th July 12:30

You're right, life is unpredictable and your personal experiences have obviously shaped your opinion here. But the fact remains that a 66 year old is far more likely to die within 2 years than, say, a 36 year old. 21 is young to lose your Dad (my Dad lost his at 16), but at least you knew him. These kids will grow up never knowing their parents.