Letters to the Editor
-
Access
I agree that the tack here to show that we accept socially older men as fathers but not older women, i.e., pointing out the double standard, is not the only point to be made. The women in question are not having children naturally and then being scolded for it, they are availing themselves to high technology to do so. If older men also avail themselves to such, I imagine the question is raised--is this right? The question pertains to both.
Medical ethics looks at issues of limited resources and access when assessing these kinds of situations. I suppose that if a private citizen has the money to spend on IVF, no matter what age, there is nothing to stop them. But is it ever that simple? What happens when/if insurance and government programs might be used to help perform IVF ... would there be a cutoff for women and men of a certain age? Would there be an ethical decision here? One that looks at the interests of the children to be born but also at the interests of the society at large? Should a 30-year-old IVF candidate be given preference over a 67-year-old IVF candidate, if resources or access to them are limited? If we have no problem saying this is something to be debated seriously, then I don't think we should have any problem debating it right now, in the current state of affairs. The technology seems to be the issue, as the writer points out, but I don't think it's only an issue for the women involved. If the men don't need as much technology, then the question in that situation is just one of age/death/partenting-through-childhood.
Technology brings with it ethical dilemmas that are sometimes different than ones that aren't fueled by technology (like the pregnant 14-year-old example). So, I think we should also address the resources question rather than just the 'personal decision' and society's response perspective.