We need to banish the myths about "late" pregnancy. Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

What's wrong with older mothers? Nothing. Time to dispel the "fertility cliff" myth

We read between the lines of newspapers' scare stories about infertility and "late" pregnancy to find the science doesn't back them up at all.

There has been a fanfare of publicity, mainly involving ova, over the past month. Frontpage headlines splashing on differing deadlines for when a woman should have children. According to the Mail, Telegraph and Mirror, among others, women should start having children before 30,  or by 30, or before 37 (which is it, guys?) to avoid the risk of infertility:
 

 

 


Alternatively, according to the papers, women should freeze their eggs by the age of 35.

This is irresponsible scaremongering. It also undermines the biological complexities associated with a women’s fertility, which is further complicated by socio-economic factors, as well as the sex and gender hierarchies that still exist.

In a new study published in Harvard Business Review, sociologists Pamela Stone, Robin J Ely and Colleen Ammerman surveyed more than 25,000 men and women who graduated from Harvard Business School over the past several decades. Around 40 per cent of the "Generation X" and "Baby Boomer" women said their spouses’ careers took precedence over theirs. Compare that with men, where more than 70 per cent of Generation X and Boomer men say their careers are more important than their wives.

And the numbers on childcare responsibility may induce hyperventilation: 86 per cent of Generation X and Boomer men said their wives take primary responsibility of childcare. And the women are agreeing: 65 per cent of Generation X women and 72 per cent of Boomer women – most of whom work full-time – say they are prepared to do most of the childcare in their relationships.

It seems society is still, whether consciously or not, conforming to outmoded notions of which behaviours are masculine or feminine.

In the UK, it’s not generally biology that drives a woman's approach to reproduction; it’s the access to effective contraception, giving women the choice to construct their lives around partners, careers and friendships. Although hotly-debated, having children later in life is neither good nor bad – it’s autonomous. A decision entirely dependent on the person in question. 

One common argument against older mothers (30+) is their inability to get pregnant and give birth to a healthy child. This simplifies and distorts the science around fertility, and this is further perpetuated by the media for the sake of a sensationalist headline.

Delving deeper into the truths about fertility: the stats and scientific reports

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) reports that the total fertility rate (TFR) in 2010 for all four constituent countries in the UK was higher than a decade previously. After a steady decline in TFR through the Nineties, there was a gradual increase from early 2000s onwards – with the exception of 2009. The drop in fertility experienced by all UK constituents in 2009 is most likely related to the Great Recession. Fertility in England and Wales peaked in 2010 with the highest fertility rate since 1973.

Total fertility rate in the UK and EU15 (1985 to 2010). Graph: ONS

The ONS reports that in 2010, the average age for a woman to give birth has steadily increased over the last 25 years. In Northern Ireland it reaches 30 years, 29.6 in both Scotland and England and 28.9 in Wales.

Age-specific fertility rates the UK (2010). Graph: ONS

The ONS reports that in 2012, almost half (49 per cent) of all live births were to mothers aged 30 and over. More specifically, 29 per cent of births are to women aged 30 to 34, 16 per cent are to women aged 35 to 39, 4 per cent are to women aged 40 to 44 and less than 1 per cent are to women over 45. One in 25 babies are now born to those over forty, a four-fold increase in 30 years.

Live births by age group of mother (1938 to 2012). Graph: ONS

The term "period of optimum fertility" doesn’t mean a woman becomes barren the second she turns 35. If a woman wants just two children, the chances of her conceiving in her mid to late thirties still remain high.

"It is important to remember that the great majority of pregnancies in older women are relatively uncomplicated and end quite satisfactorily," says WR Cohen in a 2014 commentary published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

In a 2004 paper published in Obstetrics and Gynecology, statistician David Dunson of Duke University and colleagues found that if a woman has sex twice a week, 82 per cent of woman aged between 35 and 39 would fall pregnant within a year.

The frequency here is important because if a woman had sex once per week instead of twice, "the rates of infertility increase substantially to 15 per cent, 22 to 24 per cent and 29 per cent for women aged 19 to 26, 27 to 34, and 35 to 39 years, respectively".

The paper concludes: "Increased infertility in older couples is attributable primarily to declines in fertility rates rather than to absolute sterility. Many infertile couples will conceive if they try for an additional year".

So women in their thirties might have to try harder to get pregnant, particularly if their partner is also in his late thirties. However, their age alone is unlikely to shut down their fertility.

Population-level data cannot predict when in individual woman will experience infertility. A woman in her late thirties may experience infertility, not because it’s common for women of her age, but because she is atypical (eg, premature menopause affects one in 100 women before the age of 40, and 5 in 100 women before the age of 45).

Therefore it is misleading to automatically associate infertility with age – like any problem that may occur in the human body, premature menopause is a problem with oestrogen production.

The additional complications of pregnancy and birth for women over 35

2005 study in Obstetrics and Gynaecology reports that:

The majority of studies are optimistic with regard to maternal and neonatal outcomes' in older mothers. This study found that ages 35 to 39 were associated with a statistically significant increased risk for fetal/neonatal congenital anomalies, gestational diabetes, placenta praevia, macrosomia, and caesarian delivery. Crucially, however, the clinical significance of these associations in practice was less clear. That is, while women aged 35 to 39 years were significantly more likely to experience one of these outcomes statistically, the level of increased risk was not overly large and should be interpreted cautiously.  

How foetuses are affected by later maternal age

Most of the common risks associated with later maternal age are foetal anomalies, particularly Down's, Edwards' and Patau syndrome. However, about 75 per cent of babies with Down’s syndrome are born to women who are under 35. This is because older women tend to have fewer babies. Despite this, the risk of any woman having a child with a foetal anomaly is low: 99 out of 100 per cent of women will not have a pregnancy affected by Down’s syndrome.

Older women are more likely to have twins or triplets, which, as well as having a higher risk of birth defects (5 per cent higher than singleton pregnancies), are at risk of growth restriction and preterm birth – these risks are associated with cerebral palsy and learning difficulties.

Moreover, women are more likely to suffer from multiple illnesses like diabetes and high blood pressure if they carry more than one baby. If the illnesses are thought to be a serious threat to the mother or babies, the clinician may suggest an abortion of the foetus(es). In general, there is a one in 25,000 risk of maternal mortality during singleton pregnancy or birth versus a two in 25,000 risk of maternal mortality during twin pregnancy or birth, and so on.

Moral of the story?

Doctors like Geeta Nargund need to tread carefully when advising a woman on the best time to have a child. It is important to be honest – yes, women who are below 30 are likely to conceive more easily, but women in their thirties and fourties have no problem conceiving either – and this fact shouldn’t be brushed under the carpet. 

Part of this honesty means we should not blow the problem out of proportion by intentionally presenting the worst-case scenario, scaring women in their early thirties into rushing into pregnancy.

The way things are going, women are likely to have children in their mid to late thirties, and the most likely outcome of that is that most pregnancies, births and babies will be healthy. 

In fact, women don’t respond to media headlines, scientific articles or what a bloke from the Royal Society says; they base their circumstances on those around them. And what they’ll find is that having children in your thirties is quite normal.

As the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) puts it in a briefing on older mothers: "Being aware that fertility treatment exists as a last resort does not encourage women to 'put off' having babies, just as knowing that abortion is there when contraception fails does not stop women from using contraception."

BPAS adds:

If policymakers are worried by the consequences of later maternal age, they should be focusing on supporting prenatal screening services, preparing maternity services to be better able to cope with obstetric complications, and funding decent miscarriage care and fertility treatment. What they should not be doing is nagging women to get pregnant before they are ready, just so they fit neatly into the "period of optimum fertility"".

Tosin Thompson writes about science and was the New Statesman's 2015 Wellcome Trust Scholar. 

This article first appeared in the 01 July 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Crisis Europe

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

There are risks as well as opportunities ahead for George Osborne

The Chancellor is in a tight spot, but expect his political wiles to be on full display, says Spencer Thompson.

The most significant fiscal event of this parliament will take place in late November, when the Chancellor presents the spending review setting out his plans for funding government departments over the next four years. This week, across Whitehall and up and down the country, ministers, lobbyists, advocacy groups and town halls are busily finalising their pitches ahead of Friday’s deadline for submissions to the review

It is difficult to overstate the challenge faced by the Chancellor. Under his current spending forecast and planned protections for the NHS, schools, defence and international aid spending, other areas of government will need to be cut by 16.4 per cent in real terms between 2015/16 and 2019/20. Focusing on services spending outside of protected areas, the cumulative cut will reach 26.5 per cent. Despite this, the Chancellor nonetheless has significant room for manoeuvre.

Firstly, under plans unveiled at the budget, the government intends to expand capital investment significantly in both 2018-19 and 2019-20. Over the last parliament capital spending was cut by around a quarter, but between now and 2019-20 it will grow by almost 20 per cent. How this growth in spending should be distributed across departments and between investment projects should be at the heart of the spending review.

In a paper published on Monday, we highlighted three urgent priorities for any additional capital spending: re-balancing transport investment away from London and the greater South East towards the North of England, a £2bn per year boost in public spending on housebuilding, and £1bn of extra investment per year in energy efficiency improvements for fuel-poor households.

Secondly, despite the tough fiscal environment, the Chancellor has the scope to fund a range of areas of policy in dire need of extra resources. These include social care, where rising costs at a time of falling resources are set to generate a severe funding squeeze for local government, 16-19 education, where many 6th-form and FE colleges are at risk of great financial difficulty, and funding a guaranteed paid job for young people in long-term unemployment. Our paper suggests a range of options for how to put these and other areas of policy on a sustainable funding footing.

There is a political angle to this as well. The Conservatives are keen to be seen as a party representing all working people, as shown by the "blue-collar Conservatism" agenda. In addition, the spending review offers the Conservative party the opportunity to return to ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ as a going concern.  If they are truly serious about being seen in this light, this should be reflected in a social investment agenda pursued through the spending review that promotes employment and secures a future for public services outside the NHS and schools.

This will come at a cost, however. In our paper, we show how the Chancellor could fund our package of proposed policies without increasing the pain on other areas of government, while remaining consistent with the government’s fiscal rules that require him to reach a surplus on overall government borrowing by 2019-20. We do not agree that the Government needs to reach a surplus in that year. But given this target wont be scrapped ahead of the spending review, we suggest that he should target a slightly lower surplus in 2019/20 of £7bn, with the deficit the year before being £2bn higher. In addition, we propose several revenue-raising measures in line with recent government tax policy that together would unlock an additional £5bn of resource for government departments.

Make no mistake, this will be a tough settlement for government departments and for public services. But the Chancellor does have a range of options open as he plans the upcoming spending review. Expect his reputation as a highly political Chancellor to be on full display.

Spencer Thompson is economic analyst at IPPR