Much like Nadya Suleman, Elizabeth Adeney used in-vitro fertilization, and to become pregnant at 66. At her age, she is four years older than the previous U.K. record holder. That said, she's four years younger than the world record holder, 70-year-old Omkari Panwar, who gave birth to twins, a boy and a girl, in India via emergency C-section in 2008.
According to the Mail Online, she is a well-to-do divorcee who has been desperate to conceive for years. To be pregnant at 66 as she is now, she traveled to the Ukraine to reach a controversial IVF clinic which has helped a number of women get pregnant using donor eggs and sperm.
Interestingly, a spokesman for the Church of England said:
"A child is a gift not a right. For those who have never received that gift we can well understand their desire to have children but it is always important to think in those circumstances about what is really in the child's best interests."Still more interesting is the reply by the doctor who performed IVF treatments on Patricia Rashbrook, a woman who gave birth at the age of 62 in Britain. Professor Severino Antinori feels that Adeney being pregnant at 66 is a mistake.
"The maximum age for a woman to have a child should be 63, because the average lifespan is 83 years of age and the child needs a mum for the first 18 to 20 years. The risks for a mum for giving birth at the age of 66 are very high. They include possible hypertension and even the risk of coma. Rashbrook was good medical science; we did 150 analyses in her case and we found she had a biological age of 45 even though her real age was, of course, much older."Readers, what do you think? Pregnant at 66, good idea, or bad?